A network for students interested in evidence-based health care

Cholesterol and Heart Disease: What’s the Evidence?

Posted on 2nd July 2018 by

Evidence Reviews
heart with blood vessels visualising cholesterol

The idea that high cholesterol causes heart disease is so widespread you’d have thought it was pretty much an established fact by now. High cholesterol is listed as one of the five main risk factors for heart disease by the British Heart Foundation [1], and the NHS public guidelines on cholesterol claim that “your risk of developing coronary heart disease rises as your blood’s cholesterol level increases” [2]. In supermarkets, you’ll find a significant array of spreads, yoghurts and cereals which claim to improve your cholesterol levels and decrease your risk of heart disease.

But what actually is the evidence that having high cholesterol, or high LDL (low density lipoprotein) levels, increases your chance getting heart disease? You may be surprised to learn that the studies available to us do not all point towards a causal connection between high cholesterol and heart disease. Different studies point towards a number of conflicting conclusions, and ultimately the picture is a lot more complicated than most media on the topic would suggest.

The association between cholesterol and heart disease

At first glance, it seems that we have substantial reasons to believe that high cholesterol and heart disease are closely linked. For one thing, we have a plausible-sounding explanation as to why they should be. This explanation posits that LDLs are the ‘bad’ type of cholesterol, which can stick to the inner walls of your blood vessels and potentially clog them, leading to heart conditions such as stroke, atherosclerosis, angina and coronary heart disease (CHD). Whereas HDLs (high density lipoproteins), are the ‘good’ type of cholesterol, and these have the opposite effect. [3]

There are some reasons to suggest that this hypothesis is correct. Firstly, there is evidence of a correlation between high cholesterol/LDL levels and heart disease. The Framingham Study, a prospective cohort study beginning with over 5,000 participants, published a paper in 1977 which concluded that higher HDL levels and lower LDL levels were associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease. [4]

In addition to this, some medical treatments which reduce cholesterol/LDL levels also reduce your risk of heart disease. Statins, for example are effective in both lowering cholesterol levels, and reducing the rates of CHD, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and stroke. [5]

Conflicting evidence

This evidence seems to point towards there being a causal connection between cholesterol in heart disease. However, a closer examination of the issue may make us sceptical of this conclusion.

Firstly, the evidence about the association between high LDL levels and heart disease is more complicated than it first appears. A follow-up from the initial Framingham study suggested that there was only an increase in mortality, by heart disease or other causes, in people with higher cholesterol levels under the age of 50 [6]. This is significant if we want to offer medication or lifestyle advice about preventing heart disease to those over 50 years old. A recent systematic review even suggests that patients over the age of 60 actually lived longer if they had higher LDL levels, directly contradicting the hypothesis that you are more likely to die of heart disease the higher your cholesterol levels are. [7]

Moreover, despite statins showing a correlation between lowered cholesterol levels and a reduced risk of heart disease, some other medications do not show this connection. Niacin, for example, is a cholesterol lowering drug which is known to decrease LDL levels, but has been shown to cause no significant reduction in risk of heart attack, stroke or mortality by heart disease [8] . Even more worrying is the case of Torcetrapib. This experimental drug was designed to reduce rates of heart disease by lowering patients’ LDL levels, but the research was discontinued early because it was linked to an increased risk of mortality and heart disease [9].

A causal connection?

You might be wondering how we ended up at this point, with significant amounts of evidence about cholesterol and heart disease pointing in completely opposite directions. There’s no straightforward answer to why the evidence about this problem is so messy, but one thing that I think should give us pause for thought is exactly what we mean when we talk about ’causes’ in medicine.

In the case of risk factors like cholesterol, a ’cause’ does not mean that the presence of this risk factor will always and invariably lead to a certain pathology. This depends on a number of other factors, like age, co-morbidities, lifestyle, and possibly plain luck. What we are actually trying to establish here isn’t nearly as straightforward as claims like “the TB bacterium causes tuberculosis”. Instead we are looking at a complex array of inter-related mechanisms, all of which may or may not lead to someone becoming ill. And when we are unclear about exactly how these mechanisms work or how they relate to each other, making predictions about health outcomes will inevitably be difficult and confounded.



Sasha Lawson-Frost

I'm a Philosophy Student at UCL. I'm currently doing some research the philosophy of Evidence-Based Healthcare (EBH), particularly looking at how EBH deals with issues relating to patient well-being. Twitter: @sashalfrost View more posts from Sasha

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

No Comments on Cholesterol and Heart Disease: What’s the Evidence?

  • Dee Peterson

    I think that one of the most interesting things is, that the original Framingham study results which were easily available via google search 12 years ago, are no longer found anywhere on the net. This comes along with the, ‘what are they trying to hide?’ concept. Then the summaries of that study which are now available, now go against the original conclusions. Again, why? And why isn’t the original study available anymore?
    Then, add to that, the follow up studies which try to prove the use of statin drugs, are all financed by the pharmaceutical companies that make statin drugs.
    Something’s fishy there.
    Then my doc says that I have a 30% increase in risk of heart attack if I don’t take the statins. But when I look into it, here’s what I find: That ‘30%’ increase risk is from ONE study, where the actual risk of those men between 40 and 60 who already had cardiovascular problems, was about 2.25%, which was supposedly reduced to 1.5% if they took statins. Sure, about a 30% difference. But it was worded carefully by my doctor to think I would have an absolute 30% risk of having a heart attack if I didn’t follow her advice. All the fancy statistical manipulation in trying to convince me into taking statin drugs, just rubs me the wrong way. BTW, my mother lived into her 90’s, with a life long cholesterol over 250; so did her sisters. The people in my family who died under 80? All heavy smokers.

    15th July 2020 at 12:51 pm
    Reply to Dee
  • David Engstrom

    I have pondered upon this. Are medicines always the means to health?

    2nd April 2020 at 4:44 am
    Reply to David
  • Warren Green

    Seeing the selective regression of plaque, on an angiogram, with a lowered LDL cholesterol level, is why I expect that I’ll always follow a diet that keeps my total cholesterol at 150, or below.

    31st March 2020 at 10:49 pm
    Reply to Warren
  • amel fs

    Merci pour l’article

    30th January 2020 at 9:59 am
    Reply to amel
  • Peter Lewicke

    Back in the 1980’s, the claim that cholesterol caused heart disease, especially arteriosclerosis, was shown to be a result of poor logic. It was from the Framingham study, which was completely correlational without any causative link. Why are there still people who think that cholesterol causes heart disease with such a complete lack of evidence?

    It appears that college level courses in nutrition are still teaching that pseudo-fact about cholesterol, and that is shocking. Don’t professors bother looking at evidence, or do they just believe what they learned decades ago even though it was false?

    21st November 2019 at 8:50 pm
    Reply to Peter
  • Carole Simpson

    This is a very easily read piece and raises questions which we all should be interested in. Namely the interpretation of scientific papers with claims through manipulation of statistics that drugs are the answer to health and longevity. I’ve been sceptical of the link between cholesterol and heart disease since the 80’s when I was training as a physio in the NHS. There was no real basis for my scepticism but having recently taken a more active interest fuelled by my increasing age and health I have read the doctoring data book by Dr Malcolm Kendrick. I think my gut instinct was right.

    30th September 2019 at 7:46 am
    Reply to Carole
  • carol

    I suspect that the widespread misconception that high cholesterol “causes” heart disease can be directly linked to the aggressive marketing campaign behind statins launched by the pharmaceutical industry. It also explains the average layman’s ignorance of the rather severe and common side effects of these drugs, namely muscle pain and weakness as well as cognitive deficits. I’m a nurse and even my colleagues accept the notion of causation between high cholesterol and heart diseases.

    27th September 2019 at 7:09 am
    Reply to carol
  • William Vick

    Having worked as a cardiovascular nurse, i was always highly skeptical of the cholesterol theory. On a purely anecdotal level, i had greater suspicions about refined carbohydrates, sugars, and resulting inflammation than the consumption of saturated fats. I have also been highly suspicious of chemically altered fats such as hydrogenated vegetable oils if for no other reason than their introduction and widespread use correlated well with increase in cardiovascular disease. When expressing these ideas in the late 90’s, i found myself ridiculed; particularly by the cardiologists with whom i was associated. I also had similar skepticism about aspirin therapy as a risk reduction strategy. Though i am now retired, i am now confronting these medical “myths” as a patient and have had to have vigorous debates with physicians suffering from “Dr. Oz” disorder. We would all wish that there were a “magic” bullet and a simple explanation for the chronic disorders that we face as populations live longer, but no such simplicity exists. The default position is to give both patients and physicians something they can do or control to prevent what is, at least to this point, rather inevitable as we age. Many so called “risk factors” are only marginally so and can not significantly reduce overall rates in large populations. No doctor or patient wants to hear that their is little that can be done about complex disease processes. I am sure i will ruffle more feathers and i certainly don’t intend to imply that we should just throw up our hands and stop trying; merely that we should learn to be more skeptical of unproven supposed “causes” and more willing to admit that even modern medicine can indulge itself in “blood letting” and “humours”. A little humility and an open mind that we could be wrong is far more helpful than medical dogma.

    10th September 2019 at 1:09 am
    Reply to William
  • Michael Pierce

    I am a 74 yo white male with an LDL of 265 and normal HDL. I am 5’7″ and 160lbs nonsmoker had a long

    career as a Resp Therapist and then a Trauma Nurse while my wife is an anesthetist. I eat little meat, but

    close to 12 to 16 eggs a week almost always scrambled in organic butter from grass-fed cows. I follow

    the Cochrane Report (I am sure your familar with them) and want to see a definitive finding on this subject ASAP.

    8th May 2019 at 10:45 pm
    Reply to Michael
  • Mel M

    A recent systematic review of the medial literature shows that short stature is associated with increased risk of CHD.

    Here are two references:


    Eur Heart J. 2010 Jul;31(14):1802-9

    22nd April 2019 at 3:03 am
    Reply to Mel
  • Jose

    Where is the reference you number?

    27th March 2019 at 9:51 am
    Reply to Jose
  • Warren

    My initial posting, didn’t post at all, claiming it to be a duplicate.
    But by adjusting it a little bit, most of it posted twice.
    But then both disappeared, a short time later.

    Anyway, for a broader perspective on the subject cardiovascular disease,
    youtube, “Processed People extended talks”, and look for the ones that feature,
    Caldwell Esselstyn, Jay Gordon, Jeff Novick, and John McDougall.

    4th March 2019 at 9:17 pm
    Reply to Warren
    • Emma Carter

      Hi Warren – thank you very much for your comments. We always have to manually approve comments, hence why yours did not appear straight away.

      6th March 2019 at 9:45 am
      Reply to Emma
  • Warren

    I believe it does, because you can often see the regression of plaque, thru angiography, once LDL cholesterol levels
    have been naturally lowered to the threshold level of 80mg/dL.

    But vascular disease, is only one of many ‘diseases’, that is correlated to an abnormally high cholesterol level.

    For further insights into this slough of chronic conditions, youtube, “Processed People extended talks”.
    ( Caldwell Esselstyn’s is particularly compelling )

    4th March 2019 at 8:16 pm
    Reply to Warren
  • gb

    Rob said:

    1 “…statins are very powerful reducers of cholesterol and massively successful in preventing CHD (WOSCOPS trial is worth a look”

    “massively successful” would be an exaggeration if the analysis linked below is correct. It suggests that the relative benefit of cholesterol lowering in the WOSCOPS trial was 0.5%, that the cohort studied was mostly smokers, that the benefit likely came from the anti-inflammatory effect of statins rather than the reduction of cholesterol and that those with the highest cholesterol benefited the least.

    From a philosophical perspective, one might ask, ‘why would the body create a nutrient (cholesterol is a nutrient) that would ultimately kill us?’ Is it not more likely that something happens to the nutrient that makes it toxic, rather than it being inherently toxic? Here is one suggestion, oxidation of the apolipoproetin A1 protein in the HDL molecule: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/when-so-called-good-cholesterol-goes-bad/

    If the degeneration of cholesterol (or, more precisely, the lipoprotein carrying it) is the culprit and not the cholesterol itself, would the reduction in the quantity of cholesterol be beneficial in preventing degeneration? Would it not be better to address the underlying cause of the degeneration rather than focusing on the source of one of the components of the molecule that ultimately goes bad?

    2. “there is still solid evidence that people who eat foods rich in cholesterol and saturated fat get more heart disease than those who do not.” Rob wrote this in 2018. If this claim were so, why in 2014 did the “Dietary Guidelines for America” announce, “Cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.” https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/default.asp

    12th February 2019 at 12:02 pm
    Reply to gb
  • Dora

    Thanks for a well explained post. A normal person like me ‘accountant’ with no speciality in health education was able to understand!

    My take on this is, i think its way more complicated to understand what is the real culprit behind heart attack, as it is more evident that there is no single source.
    People just need to adjust to living healthy ! To exercise, and eat health meals but more importantly healthy portion.

    12th February 2019 at 6:55 am
    Reply to Dora
    • Emma Carter

      Thank you for your comment Dora – it is good to hear you found the blog so accessible.

      12th February 2019 at 9:45 am
      Reply to Emma
  • Ahmet Rasim Küçükusta

    Atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammation and main causes are sugar (too much fructose and refined carbonhydtaretes), refined grains, excess omega 6 fatty acids and suboptimal omega 3 faty acids (vegetable oil) and tarns fats (margarins) not fat!

    27th August 2018 at 9:54 pm
    Reply to Ahmet
  • George Henderson

    “there is still solid evidence that people who eat foods rich in cholesterol and saturated fat get more heart disease than those who do not.”
    Not in the meta-analysis of Skeaff and Miller, which covers a period when total fat included trans-fats (so the correlation can be expected to be more beneficial today) and surely not if we control better for risk-taking behaviours (when healthy eating advice is to avoid fat, eating fat will be associated with all sorts of behaviours, including occupational and environmental exposure to atherogenic pollutants, that could add to CHD risk)
    Also, if sugar is associated with CHD risk, where does that fit with the idea that LDL is causal? It is generally believed that CHD rates increased in the US during the 20th century, peaking in the 1960s, and there is little evidence of CHD in medicine prior to the 19th century, but people ate animal fat before that – indeed, they hardly had access to vegetable fats prior to the 20th century – and animal fat intake did not increase.

    26th August 2018 at 10:00 pm
    Reply to George
  • George Henderson

    There are questions that can be asked to clarify this matter.
    1) does higher LDL, when it is associated with CHD, also correlate with higher insulin or a high TG/HDL ratio or atherogenic index of plasma? (Yes, in every case). If so, which of these factors should we call causal – the LDL, the hyperinsulinaemia, or the impaired reverse cholesterol transport? Is there any way that LDL itself can cause the other factors (in Framingham, higher LDL is associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, a disease of hyperinsulinaemia)?
    2) Is there any clinical dyslipidemia pattern, associated with CHD and thought to be causal, which features very low triglycerides? If LDL is not associated with CHD when lipoproteins are low in TGs (i.e. when there is little fat in the blood because the rate of fat use for fuel is high) what is causal?
    3) if fasting elevates LDL in healthy non-obese subjects (but not in obese or diabetic) will fasting increase the risk of CHD? Can CHD be a disease caused by eating too little?

    26th August 2018 at 9:44 pm
    Reply to George
  • Rob Seddon-Smith

    There is much to be said for your research.
    The philosophy behind EBH and behind the populist views is very interesting.
    I would disagree most strongly with your implications in this piece however – I suspect that you are making the same mistake that others have made in linking some unlinked data in ways it was not intended – this is how ‘what the fat’ succeeded – it’s actually a bit of a leap of faith.
    In particular, you need to be aware that medications that lower cholesterol do have evidence of benefit, it’s just that doing it with drugs other than statins has a low level of benefit, but not none. There is actually evidence that lowering TC makes a difference. As you say, statins are very powerful reducers of cholesterol and massively successful in preventing CHD (WOSCOPS trial is worth a look)
    As for the idea that high LDL in later life is associated with health this is not the case – a mistake here on the part of the analysts. Low LDL levels are asssociated with ill-health in older age but are a symptom not a cause (otherwise we’d see millions of early deaths from statin use)
    There is also a well studied plausible biological process by which cholesterol might cause heart disease, and endless studies (not just Framingham) associating higher levels with higher risk.
    Whilst it is true that there are concerns over the causative relationship, especially with dietary cholesterol specifically, there is still solid evidence that people who eat foods rich in cholesterol and saturated fat get more heart disease than those who do not.
    With respect, I think you have been guilty of making the same error of judgement that many others have done in seeking your evidence – you went with an idea and found affirmation, not information. If it turns out that the ‘cholesterol is innocent’ theory is correct, it will be because of luck, not judgement – there is no good evidence yet to overturn the lipid hypothesis of CHD. After all, it has the best credentials – it works, and saves a lot of lives.
    Now, in the context of your interest in philoshophy this seeking for affirmation is worthy of study. You may need to consider some psychology input too.
    I would argue that EBH suffers desperately from both affirmation bias and is also harmed by persuasive writers looking to make a name for themselves, or the well-intended who lack the knowledge to see the bigger picture.
    This affects everyone, including those who perform key reviews. Even Cochrane suffers (badly) from this bias.

    Good luck.

    23rd July 2018 at 7:39 am
    Reply to Rob
  • Hedley Finger

    I have been reading lately that atherosclerosis is a disease of blood vessel inflammation, and that cholesterol is just an innocent bystander. Stations are therefore effective because they are anti-inflammatory, not because they also lower cholesterol.

    6th July 2018 at 10:28 pm
    Reply to Hedley

Subscribe to our newsletter

You will receive our monthly newsletter and free access to Trip Premium.