Talk:Cholesterol/Archive 2

Clathrin mediated endocytosis is not cholesterin dependent
I think there is a mistake in the main article; could someone either find a citation or delete the notion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.130.90.19 (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Picture
There is a wrong link in "Microscopic appearance of cholesterol crystals in water" picture (it's liked to a Adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma picture, a kind of neoplasia ). Do anyone know the right picture to link? otherwise I think that it should be removed. Jacopopitaciu (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Medcyclopaedia, this type of neoplasia produces cysts whose content is rich in cholesterol. Apparently the cholesterol in these cysts can reach such high concentrations that the cholesterol can crystallize.  Hence the picture is unusual, but not completely out of place.  Boghog (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Diet
I've just had tests done and my doctor tells me that while my overall cholestorol is fine, the ratio of bad to good is too high. The Wiki article talked about this, but the article is too technical for me. I realise that there is some arguments about whether cholestorol has bad effects anyway, but let's just say my doctor is right. I understand that the bad cholestorols come from animal products (meat and dairy), so I need to reduce these; but where do the good forms come from? What would be useful on this page is some information on what dietary changes I could make to increase the good forms of cholesterol. Groomys1 (talk) 11:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Help somebody, this sentence doesn't make sense!
" Phytosterols can compete cholsterol reabsorption in intestinal tract back into the intestinal lumen for elimination."

I'm not enough of a chemist/physiologist to fix this -- phytosterols can compete with? complete? Nothing seems to quite work.

As a botanist I'm OK with "phytosterols" but a brief explanation might be useful, as there seems to be a fad for taking purified phytosterols as food supplements at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M Lou102WK (talk • contribs) 02:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Typo in Regulation of Cholesterol Synthesis
I believe there is a typo in the text under the heading Regulation of Cholesterol Synthesis. The text is as follows, "The cleaved SREBP then migrates to the nucleus and acts as a transcription factor to bind to the SRE (sterol regulatory element), which stimulates the transcription of many genes. Among these are the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor and HMG-CoA reductase. The former scavenges circulating LDL from the bloodstream, whereas HMG-CoA reductase leads to an increase of endogenous production of cholesterol.[20] " I believe the second sentence should say, "Among these are the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) receptor and the HMG-CoA reductase." I have no qualifications in this area so I don't want to edit it myself, but it looks like an obvious mistake.
 * According to this link, SREBP regulates the expression of the LDL receptor.  On the other hand, according to this  link, SREBP also appears to regulate the expression of the HLD receptor. So what is written in this wikipedia article is correct, but it may need to be expanded. Boghog (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Which apolipoprotein C?
In the third graph under "Plasma transport and regulation of absorption", it says:
 * ...contain apolipoprotein B-48, apolipoprotein C, and apolipoprotein E in their shells...

There is no wiki article for apolipoprotein C, only apolipoprotein C[1-4]. Is this meant to refer to all four, or one specific apolipoprotein C, or is apolipoprotein C another entity that needs an article? AlanM1 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have just created a stub for the apolipoprotein C family and included a citation to support that at least three of the four members of the apolipoprotein C family (C1, C2, and C3) are components of chylomicrons. The fourth member, apolipoprotein C4 appears to date not to have been very well characterized. Boghog (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What is Serum Cholestrol?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.248.2.95 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

China Study
I added back the China Study reference because Kelly2357 (who has been discussing his/her objection to the source at talk:The China Study) has been removing it as a source across a handful of pages. SlimVirgin wrote: "The study itself was peer-reviewed (e.g. here's a paper in the American Journal of Cardiology that was derived from it), and the book is a reliable source because written by one of the scientists in charge of the study. There's no reason to go around removing it from articles." --Aronoel (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC) Until there is a proper medical reference, this should not be included, please see WP:MEDRS. also, the book was never peer reviewed, you are thinking of the study called the "China-Oxford-Cornell Study on Dietary, Lifestyle and Disease Mortality Characteristics in 65 Rural Chinese Counties" - in which the "China Study" book only dedicates a few pages to. They are not the same thing.Kelly2357 (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this had been resolved a long time ago! Anyway, as you can see in WP:MEDRS, third-party published books do qualify as reliable sources. This book was written by an expert evaluating multiple peer-reviewed, primary sources. If you are still concerned, you can go back to the original discussion at Talk:The China Study or post at the reliable sources noticeboard. Then if you gain consensus that this is not a reliable source, you can remove it from articles. --Aronoel (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I would expect the claims to be based on research studies, rather than what appears to be a popular science book. In this article certainly, it should be easier to access the data on which you base your conclusions. JFW &#124; T@lk  18:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm confused or something, but I thought that popuar science books were acceptable because it says on WP:MEDRS that "Popular science and medicine books are useful tertiary sources, but there are exceptions. Most self-published books or books published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and consequently are not reliable sources."


 * Also, I asked SlimVirgin about this at Talk:The China Study and he/she explained that this is a reliable source and should not have been removed from articles as Kelly did, writing, "The book is a reliable source, according to our sourcing policy, because written by the scientist in charge of the study and published independently. His is a valid perspective, even if you personally disagree with it, and he's a scientist who specializes in that field..." and "The study itself was peer-reviewed (e.g. here's a paper in the American Journal of Cardiology that was derived from it), and the book is a reliable source because written by one of the scientists in charge of the study. There's no reason to go around removing it from articles" I really value SlimVirgin's opinion on these issues, since he/she helped write a lot of the RS guidelines. --Aronoel (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The book is based on a well-known study that T. Colin Campbell led, and he's clearly qualified. Kelly has been going around for weeks removing any reference to the study, the book, Campbell, and the conclusions, for reasons that remain unexplained. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 18:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, the entire paragraph is based on sources that I would not regard as primarily useful, except to illustrate a controversy. The first source is an NHS website, and should ideally be replaced with an actual reliable source. James Le Fanu is not uncontroversial in the UK, and looking at the China Study book it seems that, too, is not without controversy. At the moment, therefore, it looks as if the Campbell's views are just that: views. This could be avoided if we could link directly to a secondary source that is easily acceptable. Despite a PubMed trawl, I cannot immediately find the journal paper in which Campbell first claimed that ingestion of animal protein drives hypercholesterolaemia. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the rest of the paragraph, but the sentence in question—"Another view is that although saturated fat and dietary cholesterol also raise blood cholesterol, these nutrients are not as effective at doing this as is animal protein"—would benefit from being rewritten, and having in-text attribution, along with a page number from the book. When I restored the edit, my concern was only that Campbell should be regarded as a reliable source. But the way the sentence is written is not ideal. SlimVirgin  TALK |  CONTRIBS 20:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vitamins deleted
I deleted vitamins A, E and K in the introduction. They are not made from cholesterol. Mkatan (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Prof. Please make any further changes that you think are appropriate! JFW &#124; T@lk  02:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Article Makes Error In Cholesterol Level Checks
The article shows correctly the chemical structure for cholesterol and yet under testing explains that the levels tested for are 'bad' cholesterol (LDLs) and 'good' cholesterol (HDLs); yet as the opening statement implies there is only one type of cholesterol.

These tests do not test for cholesterol but for lipoproteins and the 'bad' one. This leads to the confusion from the other discussion about 'bad' cholesterol coming from animal fat. This is a misconception and adds to the continued belief that we can reduce our LDL levels through diet; which we cannot. We can reduce our VLDL levels (which are the initial state of LDLs) but this has no impact on our overall LDL levels in anyway.

The testing side should be excluded from this article unless the full discussion on cholesterol levels and the true impact of saturated and unsaturated fats are also to be explained to the lay person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.135.221 (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dietary sources
The article cites a biased, non-scientific reference "Dietary Guidlines for Americans 2005", USDA, for the following claim: "Those wishing to reduce their cholesterol through a change in diet should aim to consume less than 7% of their daily calories from animal fat and fewer than 200 mg of cholesterol per day."

The claim should either be substantiated by a peer reviewed scientific study or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xkit (talk • contribs) 06:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting sentences: A change in diet in addition to other lifestyle modifications may help reduce blood cholesterol. It is debatable that a diet, changed to reduce dietary fat and cholesterol, can lower blood cholesterol levels... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottbeckford (talk • contribs) 19:08, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just made some edits. The USDA's advice is now presented as a guideline coming from the USDA. Also "animal fat" was inserted by a vandal - it originally had "saturated fat".. The conflict and the latter half of the section have also been cleared up. eug (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Schizophrenic advice on diet effects
In one section, it's stated that diet has been shown to not affect cholesterol levels. In another, it states that a vegetarian or low protein diet improves levels. I suspect multiple editing hands with people adding in what they felt was right. I have no problem with multiple viewpoints backed up by citations, but right now, it sounds like we're contradicting ourselves. -74.200.4.237 (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem converting to PDF
When this article is converted to PDF, blank pages are generated, pages 9 & 10 Repagers (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Ancel Keys
, using IPs, has been repeatedly adding URLs to references from 1952 and 1954 from Ancel Keys. Repeated requests for discussion have not lead to anything. Whether orally ingested cholesterol leads to hypercholesterolaemia is an interesting discussion, but I would not want to introduce content with such ancient references. I requested for the article to be semi-protected, but full protection has resulted instead. JFW &#124; T@lk  20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's a quote from the CURRENT article: " The body compensates for cholesterol intake by reducing the amount synthesized.[citation needed]". So you're saying wikipedia is better off having statements with no source whatsoever, rather than ones from the 1950s? Introducing content? what content have I introduced? The content is already there, I'm only providing the source. I provided another source from I think it was the 1990s. The only reason I was editing from other IP addresses is because I was posting from my phone and didn't feel like logging in. Shaddix (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

is vaguely useful in the sense that it is a secondary source, but the sources are still not remotely the kind that is actually useful. It would be very helpful if you could at least make an effort to format your sources, because bare URLs are not suitable. JFW &#124; T@lk  00:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you don't want me to do it that way then change the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed page to say "do not provide a source unless you can properly format it". Riddle me this. You do state that a statement of fact with no source on wikipedia is superior to a statement with a source. True or false? Your actions so far have pointed to true. I guess I should just go remove any sources you've provided and replace them with citation needed. I would be doing you a favor in that case. 75.139.32.32 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Replacing citation needed with an unsuitable source is possibly worse, because it gives the impression to the cursory reader that the matter is properly cited.
 * Also, formatting references is not hard. You don't need to put it all in citation templates, but you should at least provide the title, the publication etc. JFW &#124; T@lk  09:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Its only your opinion, your lipitor selling opinion, that the source is unsuitable. If you don't like my sources, find ones that are better. But don't remove mine. Just because something is old doesn't mean its wrong. 166.248.139.108 (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly this issue elicits strong views. It's a difficult issue, complicated by the perceived influences of pharmaceutical companies (e.g. vendors of statins) and food producers (some of whose products may have a high cholesterol content). Incidentally I hope none of the participants take this personally, I'm certainly not suggesting bias on anyone's part, just saying that this commercial context exists and makes for less consensus in the literature than on some other issues. If it helps, I think a relatively recent review provides a fairly balanced secondary source - incidentally I have no relationship with the author. Adh (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The source could be used to source the reduced statement. The source also probably deserves expanded use in the article. Here's a quote: "Dietary restriction very rapidly (within 24 h) and very strongly down-regulates cholesterol synthesis: this is related to interruption of the required carbon backbone supply chain (via the acetyl-CoA pool)." Furthermore, it mentions that when dietary intake is high, "biliary and intestinal excretion will also be intensified". I saw some rabbit business, but if that's not important, then there's no content dispute. It would be helpful if there was more content discussion here. Biosthmors (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow I can't believe other people care about this. Sorry for being a bitch. Anyway, the reason rabbits are mentioned is because the original idea that dietary cholesterol intake results in hypercholesterolemia in humans came from testing on rabbits. Which was then found to be untrue when it was actually tested on humans. It wouldn't really matter to a reader of the article that rabbits get high cholesterol from eating it Shaddix (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Also it's hilarious that anyone would ask if rabbits have some peculiar metabolism of cholesterol considering they're freaking HERBIVORES Shaddix (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Shaddix, this is the benefit of using the talk page. For ease of referencing, the source Adh30 suggested (10.1194/jlr.R600019-JLR200) is a review from J Lipid Res on the topic of dietary impact on lipoprotein patterns, and the Lecerf source seems reasonable also. Both appear to meet the guidance from WP:MEDRS on the standards of references. Again, I do not dispute that there is a difference between rabbit and human response to cholesterol ingestion, and this might be worth mentioning in a "history" section (currently lacking). JFW &#124; T@lk  20:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Membrane fluidity
Under the section discussing biological functions, cholesterol is said to decrease membrane fluidity. While the source regarding this is from 2011, the actual information it is based off of may not be. According to the 2008 version of the Molecular Biology of the Cell:

"Cholesterol modulates the properties of lipid bilayers. When mixed with phospholipids, it enhances the permeability-barrier properties of the lipid bilayer. It inserts into the bilayer with its hydroxyl group close to the polar head groups of the phospholipids, so that its rigid, platelike steroid rings interact with-and partly immobilize-those regions of the hydrocarbon chains closest to the polar head groups (see Figure 10-5). By decreasing the mobility of the first few CH2 groups of the hydrocarbon chains of the phospholipid molecules, cholesterol makes the lipid bilayer less deformable in this region and thereby decreases the permeability of the bilayer to small water-soluble molecules. Although cholesterol tightens the packing of the lipids in a bilayer, it does not make membranes any less fluid. At the high concentrations found in most eucaryotic plasma membranes, cholesterol also prevents the hydrocarbon chains from coming together and crystallizing."

If you check earlier versions, it also mentions the fluidity-reducing properties of cholesterol so I suspect this is a change that is slowly being accepted. Does anyone have any input on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serafap (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

At higher concentrations (close to 50 per cent), cholesterol helps separate the phospholipids, preventing crystallization. Cholesterol thus helps prevent extreme stiffness and extreme fluidity alike. [Alberts, et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell: Fourth Edition, New York: Garland Science, 2002, p. 588.] Dflyer (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Dflyer

low cholesterol increases all-cause mortality
This fact should be covered. One study found this in older men. Others have found it in all ages. Links into PubMed can be found here -- Encyclopedant (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is an association, yes. We know that people with very high blood pressure have a markedly increased risk of death, yet low blood pressure is present in many people in the hours and days before their death. Low cholesterol is a marker of badness (e.g. cancer-related cachexia), and indeed the article currently mentions this phenomenon, referenced to a high-quality secondary source. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

cholesterol is the basis for steroid hormones
The body converts cholesterol into pregnenolone and from there to the rest of the steroid hormones. This fact is essential information and should be included on the page. One proposed explanation for the mortality risks of low cholesterol is the starving of steroid hormone synthesis. -- Encyclopedant (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You will need to supply a good high-quality secondary source for the claim that low cholesterol somehow starves steroid hormone synthesis. Have you looked up the serum concentrations of the average steroid hormone? Cholesterol is present in mmol/l, while the average steroid hormone is measured in nanograms and nanomols. JFW &#124; T@lk  23:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

plain english
One of the difficulties of academics is they become very "inhouse" and this article is full of technical jargon.

You have to decide who it is for. Is this article for Doctors and Biologists? Or can it also be for the ordinary person who may want to know about cholesterol and constructive things they can do to improve their health.

One way around this is to put the high jargon stuff in a "medical research" section and reorganise the article to have plain english and perhaps the odd explanatory phrase following a technical term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg55 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The article should be reasonably understandable to someone with a basic education. Most articles are pitched at early college level readers. However, you will find that some maths articles are (much) more inaccessible. There is absolutely no precedent for having "popular" and "geeky" sections containing the same information.
 * Concerning "[...] constructive things they can do to improve their health", bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a how to not die of heart disease manual. We can only reproduce the recommendations made by authoritative sources with regards to lifestyle approaches. This should be in the context of the health effects of raised cholesterol; much of the related content is actually in hypercholesterolemia. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Greetings JFW, we meet again. Here is an example of elegantly written material from the CSIRO, Australia's scientific research body. http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Health-and-Wellbeing/Prevention/CholesterolFacts.aspx note how they write with basic concepts simply defined in a triangle of knowledge that moves to more advanced material. There is very good material in the Wikipedia article, I'm not debating that and I certainly wouldn't want to see it cut. I just don't want to spend all my time looking up so many things that are shorthand for medicos. I'm merely raising editing issues of clarity and direction (and thank you for the other reference). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drg55 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Feel free to make changes yourself or alternatively providing examples of particularly egregious examples of jargon. At the same time, I do not support having one article with two versions (easy and hard). For the really simple stuff we have a Simple English Wikipedia (simple:Cholesterol). JFW &#124; T@lk  21:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article is not all bad at all. I'll have a go at improving readability at a few spots in the article. Rather than simplifying it its more how you would talk if you had a group of academics from other disciplines as opposed to a group of medicos in the hallway sharing their insights. In this manner (the first one) you would simply fit in to discussion sufficient explanation of terms rather than full definitions, as you were going along. When someone really understands a subject they can do this easily and don't feel bound by conventions of doctrine.Drg55 (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I put some changes to the head of the article to lift out the points that cholesterol has importance both within cells and in bodily systems. And a definition of eukaryotes which I hope gives more readability.  I'm thinking that the head really needs to set the tone for the whole article even if just alluding to it by a phrase or a few words.  I need to give this more study to say if it does or does not, I think the article might have a section on the current direction of research into cholesterol in so far as what researchers think they might be able to achieve if they get a better understanding of it.


 * The physiology section was good, and I thought the linked Lipoprotein article was really excellent, unlike some others which are a bit muddy and dense. In that respect I put a brief definition of Phytosterols actually taken from the linked article in order to allow a flow of information and simplify things by giving a perspective of it.


 * Thats as far as I got with the subediting for the moment. It might be adequate enough as the overview of the subject up to this point.  The technical stuff that follows can pretty much be left alone I think.  But then we get back to some simple stuff like diet, which might be better brought forward in the article so that the general reader can get it and stop at that point, and the more advanced reader can read on beyond it.Drg55 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC).

Effectiveness of Statins
It is telling that one of the most important assertions in the article remains unreferenced:

"Multiple human trials using HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, known as statins, have repeatedly confirmed that changing lipoprotein transport patterns from unhealthy to healthier patterns significantly lowers cardiovascular disease event rates, even for people with cholesterol values currently considered low for adults.[citation needed]"

Even the most optimistic of trials (and not of all of them) for primary prevention showed no more than a few percent reduction in mortality when expressed in total risk as opposed to relative risk and metastudies have shown no risk reduction at all. I am concerned that the lay reader will interpret "significantly" in the above statement as meaning major or important as opposed to statistical significance.

Also, it is not clear to me that statins change "lipoprotein transport patterns from unhealthy to healthier patterns." It is probably more correct and/or clearer to say "lowered levels of LDL."

If this is not corrected, I will take a shot at it later.sgmiller[User talk:sgmiller|talk) 4 May 2012  —Preceding undated comment added 10:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Mortality is not the only valid outcome measure. I think people prefer not to have heart attacks, given the choice. This claim is easily verified with studies such as JUPITER.
 * The "lipoprotein transport patterns" is the style of . Feel free to change it. JFW &#124; T@lk  11:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hypothyroidism Hyperthyroidism and Cholesterol Levels
Could you also discuss how Hypothyroidism is related to elevated cholesterol levels? People with Hypothyroidism often have elevated cholesterol levels. On the other hand, hyperthyroidism causes low cholesterol levels. Taking medications for hypothyroidism often reduces LDL cholesterol levels. Having hypothyroidism increases your risk for cardiovascular disease as studies show it contributes to elevated cholesterol, hypertension, and hyperglycemia. There is also iodine-induced hyperthyroidism as well as fluoride-induced hypothyroidism.

Before the introduction of statin drugs, elevated cholesterol was simply treated as "hypothyroidism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.61.178.14 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the last claim is correct. Thyroxine analogues were used (and poorly tolerated), but not in the same way as hypothyroidism.
 * I think the discussion about thyroid status could also be had on Hypercholesterolemia. JFW &#124; T@lk  01:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Heat Damaged Cholesterol?
I am very interested in learning what happens to cholesterol when it is heated and or oxidized. For example at what temperature does cholesterol break down? Is heat damaged cholesterol toxic.

Perhaps someone who knows about this area of biochemistry would like to add a section on Cholestrol Breakdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.233.110.34 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Image Accuracy Label
The black and white image accompanied by the text ->Microscopic appearance of cholesterol crystals in water.<- may be a cholesterol crystal however when it is enlarged it seems to be mislabeled. Perhaps a less ambiguous image could be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susten.biz (talk • contribs) 16:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Important for infant development
If we're to note that breast milk has high cholesterol, we should probably also link in the same sentence to why that's important. I noticed the CDC wasn't so good at pointing this out, making it sound like it was a scary thing to everyone. A siple google search nets me less good links, anyone have better? 174.62.68.53 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Cholesterol may be a surfactant
Just coming over from Polysorbate I suddenly realized that cholesterol could be a surfactant too (it may even have some surfactant properties by itself, probably not a strong one due to the short fatty chain length but nevertheless). At least it strongly interacts with (officially recognised) surfactants in our body. It's probably worth to be mentioned here. There we go: http://www.google.ch/search?q=cholesterol+surfactant --178.197.228.24 (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC) As a result e.g. cholesterin is important for lung function: http://w3.unisa.edu.au/news/2008/110408.asp --178.197.228.24 (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Related content
There is related content at Reverse cholesterol transport and Cholesterol total synthesis, which otherwise escape attention. I have added both of them to Template:Cholesterol and steroid metabolism enzymes although it is not accurate in the current state. Templates need to be modified suitably. Requesting suitable intervention.  D ip ta ns hu Talk 18:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Systematic Name
Although the full structure contains 27 carbon atoms, the polycyclic part only contains 17. Shouldn't the systematic name be heptadec... rather than heptacos...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.146.18 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Binding to ion channels
Concerning your edit with the edit summary "edits are WP:PRIMARY; WP:NOTJOURNAL, WP:NOTJARGON also apply", I agree that WP:PRIMARY applies, but no medical claims are being made, so per WP:SCIRS are allowed but not encouraged. I strongly disagree that WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:NOTJARGON applies. The added text is reasonably clear and not in the lead section, so certainly is allowable. While this material may not be of interest to you, it is of interest to others. As demonstrated in this discussion, your viewpoint is not winning any converts. Finally, the primary source is problematic (see below), but not for the reasons you state.

The primary source that you added is an in silico study that predicts but does not prove that cholesterol is a positive allosteric modulator of the GABAA receptor. The review that you cited already comes to this conclusion. The main new finding of the in silico study is a predicted binding location. Since this location has not been experimentally verified, I have removed the source as being WP:TOOSOON. Boghog (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC).

LDL and HDL
These are first used in the article without being introduced. As they are frequently referred to by the press, please would someone knowledgeable add an explanation. Old Aylesburian (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

These are the lipoproteins that transport cholesterol. In humans, it's relevant to whether we are synthesizing cholesterol or shipping it to/from the liver. The denser (VLDL<LDL<IDL<HDL)the lipoprotein complex, the less triacylglycerol, cholesterol, and lipids it has and the more protein, overall. Hence, why HDL (with less cholesterol) is deemed "good" as it means there is not a huge surfeit of cholesterol and lipids floating around the circulatory system. 73.200.108.57 (talk) 23:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Molecular actions
Concerning your edit with the edit summary "questionable section, WP:OR conjecture: alter subtitle to reflect this content is research & speculation only; WP:NOTJOURNAL, WP:PRIMARY", I agree that WP:PRIMARY applies, but no medical claims are being made, so per WP:SCIRS are allowed but not encouraged. I strongly disagree that WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:OR applies. The added text is reasonably clear and not in the lead section, so certainly is allowable. While this material may not be of interest to you, it is of interest to others. Boghog (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Any suggestion of "molecular actions" (rather than just lab research that is underway to actually define mechanisms) infers human relevance, so WP:MEDRS does apply. Consequently, I removed this speculative, early-stage lab research here for discussion per WP:BRD. The content and sources are completely conjectural existing only as in vitro research not confirmed in humans, having low relevance per WP:NOTJOURNAL. Including this in the article is WP:OR, suggesting unproven importance. --Zefr (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Cholesterol has recently been found to bind to and activate the estrogen-related receptor alpha (ERRα), and may be the endogenous ligand for the receptor. Furthermore, statin-associated myopathy and suppression of cholesterol-induced cytokine secretion by macrophages are reduced by absence or inhibition of ERRα. As such, modulation of ERRα signaling is a key mediator in the actions of statins (by changes in cholesterol levels) and bisphosphonates.


 * Cholesterol has been found to bind to and affect the gating of a number of ion channels such as the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, GABAA receptor, and the inward-rectifier potassium ion channel.


 * The last sentence that you removed is supported by a secondary source and therefore should be restored. Cholesterol binding recombinant human ERRα in vitro is not a suggestion, it is a testable hypothesis that is independent of any human relevance. Hence on this specific claim, WP:MEDRS does not apply. The source goes on to discuss possible mechanisms by which statins and bisphosphonates exert there effects on bone and muscle. The fact that these medications have these effects is a medical claim that is backup by secondary sources cited by the primary source (e.g, ). The source goes on to discuss the mechanisms by which these drugs exert their effects.  This is debatably a medical claim and hence probably should be removed. WP:OR only applies if the editor that added material was making claims that went beyond what the source stated.  That was not the case here, therefore WP:OR does not apply. Finally as WP:MEDANIMAL makes clear, it is permissible to include in vitro and animal studies in Wikipedia articles as long as it is made clear that the data is preclinical. The scope of Wikipedia is wider than WP:MED, it also includes WP:MCB. Not everything must be proven in humans to be notable. Hence WP:NOTJOURNAL does not apply. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This edit to call the section "preclinical research" is an exaggeration, as the research has not been tested in lab animals, let alone in a human animal model that would qualify for "preclinical". WP:MEDANIMAL applies to the content in question because the implication to a typical user is that this applies to cholesterol mechanisms, but there is no in vivo proof that it does (inappropriate to include this in the Physiology section). The other content under Physiology has been demonstrated in humans, but this basic research section is years from proof in humans, so is not "preclinical". Including in vitro content to imply relevance to human cholesterol metabolism is the type of information appropriate for a journal review, but is not encyclopedic per WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTJOURNAL. --Zefr (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The definition of preclinical is anything that is done in the laboratory. It is completely irrelevant if the research was done in lab animals or not. Hence this research is preclinical. Also if you have bothered to read the article, animal studies were in fact done. Finally as demonstrated in this previous discussion, your viewpoint has not won any converts. Boghog (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * To exclude material because it might be interpreted by some as having human relevance is ridiculous and is a form of censhorship. Boghog (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The definition of "preclinical" means that studies are "first-in-human" for dosing safety before a clinical trial is conducted. As stated here, it's a term common in the clinical trial literature. By contrast, in vitro receptor research is early-stage in the drug or mechanism discovery cycle This early research stage is exaggerated by your edit and subtitle selection as supposedly meaningful to physiology when it is actually years away from in vivo proof first in animals, then in humans. This is not censorship or insubstantial debate, but rather is just stating facts for an encyclopedia user, as we should be obligated to do per WP:MEDANIMAL ("in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings") and WP:NOTJOURNAL ("A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. ...language should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field"). --Zefr (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The preposition "pre" means "previous to" or "before". Preclinical does not mean first in humans.  Preclinical means before humans.  First in humans is a phase 1 clinical trial. A phase 1 trial is not preclinical, it is clinical. It is clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.   Also in this edit with the edit summary A receptor claim is a medical claim.  False.  A receptor claim is a biochemical claim, not a medical claim. Boghog (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This edit with the edit summary [preclinical] is not physiology.  Preclinical research is not restricted to physiology. It also includes biochemistry. Again, it is painfully obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Boghog (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're clearly trying to glorify in vitro research. You can't redefine the encyclopedia which states what "preclinical" means in the advances of research toward human understanding: "a stage of research that begins before clinical trials (testing in humans) can begin." "First in human" is a pilot study; anyone who has done human research - and I assume a basic biochemist or pharmacologist would not normally be involved - knows "preclinical" are the series of final steps before being tested in humans. In vitro would not be called "preclinical" because it is far from proof that the mechanism even exists in vivo, much less whether it is relevant to actual human physiology. --Zefr (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The definition of what "preclinical" means directly contradicts what you wrote above, namely "preclinical" means that studies are "first-in-human". Whether it relevant to actual human physiology is irrelevant because it is not a medical claim.  Finally preclinical does include in vitro.  Boghog (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You're clearly trying to glorify in vitro research. Not at all. All I am stating is that in vitro research is independently notable if supported by reliable sources. Furthermore as long as no medical claims are being made, there is no conflict with WP:MEDRS. You need to accept that the scope of Wikipedia is broader than WP:MED. It also includes WP:MCB. Boghog (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In this edit with the edit summary: "molecular actions" are artificially determined and misrepresent that this may apply to humans; call it what it is: research. The interaction with a small molecule with an protein is not artificial.  It is a fact that is independent of any relevance to humans.  Since there is no medical claims made, there is no misrepresentation. Boghog (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Continuing the debate between a molecular biologist and a physiologist... Until in vitro findings are clearly confirmed in vivo, especially in humans, showing specificity (blocking or augmenting studies) and efficacy (such as with dose-response effects), they are not facts but rather are theoretical in the process of hypothesis testing in an artificial environment variably created by researchers as explained in WP:MEDANIMAL, i.e., they are not true physiological events until proven in vivo, so are WP:UNDUE. Any putative mechanism that supposedly is part of human health or disease related to cholesterol should be held to MEDRS sourcing. The two sources used in this section are preliminary, full of conjecture and WP:PRIMARY at best. In an article like this on a topic of general interest to lay encyclopedia users, this information is premature, esoteric, jargonistic and has little value in the context of better established information elsewhere in the article per WP:NOTJOURNAL. Your insistence to include hypothetical "molecular actions" falls more into a category of persuasion trying to justify in vitro research for the encyclopedia, and therefore is WP:SYNTH and borderline WP:OR. --Zefr (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Binding of a small molecule to a protein is not hypothetical, but a real, verifiable, fact. You previously tried arguing that it wasn't, but conesnsus is clearly against you. As long as it is supported by reliable sources, it is fair game for inclusion in an article on cholesterol. As the project banners make clear at the top of this talk page, the scope of this article not only within WP:MED, but also WP:MCB and WP:CHEMS. Boghog (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Cholesterol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanheart.org/cholesterol/about.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140202053506/https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov:80/guidelines/cholesterol/atp3upd04.htm to http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp3upd04.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanheart.org/cholesterol/about.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, but fixed one URL to more direct information for AHA. --Zefr (talk) 03:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

vegetable sources of cholesterol
Secondary metabolism : High cholesterol in tomato A straightforward approach reveals the full cholesterol biosynthetic pathway in tomato, which is composed of ten enzymatic steps, opening the door for bioengineering of high-value molecules in crops. Phylogenetic analysis suggests that cholesterogenesis evolved from the more ancient phytosterol pathway. https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016213

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.8.147 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Plant cholesterol biosynthetic pathway overlaps with phytosterol metabolism
The amount of cholesterol made by many plants is not negligible. Whereas cholesterogenesis in animals was elucidated decades ago, the plant pathway has remained enigmatic. Among other roles, cholesterol is a key precursor for thousands of bioactive plant metabolites https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016205

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.8.147 (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 3b goals
To update guidelines and references for hypercholesterolemia and cholesterol testing.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendado425 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts to the Talk page, and make sure your other group members assign themselves to the page before editing. Thanks. Health policy (talk) 03:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations II 2019 group 3a peer review
Part 1:

1.Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “guiding framework”?

Yes, the addition of the prevalence and a brief description of the mechanism of familial hypercholerolemia provides clear information from a reliable source in a neutral manner. Pkhouder (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

yesKmhudson22 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC) 2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

References for hypercholesterolemia were added, and information from AHA guidelines regarding the correlation between LDL lowering and reduced risks of CV disease and stroke. Pkhouder (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, information about cholesterol testing was added with references to the AHA guidelines Kylett1 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

YesKmhudson22 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Part 2: A. Yes Kmhudson22 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC) B.yes Kylett1 (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC) C. yes Pkhouder (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review"
This study, referenced at the end of the "Hypercholesterolemia" section, is problematic (see lipid hypothesis) and should not be cited uncritically.


 * https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/
 * https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/cholesterol-and-statins
 * https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-systematic-review-reporting-lack-of-an-association-between-ldl-cholesterol-and-mortality-in-the-elderly/

WP Ludicer (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Why no figures for women?
The “norm” for women is absent 2A00:23C7:9603:5401:CC95:34FB:27DF:1942 (talk) 12:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is there no section on history?
I feel like there could be more information on the history of how we discovered cholesterol and how we came to understand its role in the body. The small description of it feels notably incomplete compared to the length of the rest of the information. 2600:1700:8280:2260:80FD:B405:167D:8498 (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Do you have access to good resources on the subject? Sounds like a good idea! JFW &#124; T@lk  08:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dietary cholestrol's impact on blood cholesterol
Over the years, studies have shown that dietary cholesterol has little to no impact on blood cholesterol levels. It turns out that high cholesterol foods are usually high saturated fat foods as well, and the latter is the main cause of blood cholesterol levels. Here are some papers that summarize what I've talked about, and provides a small bit of history as well. I'm not well-versed on wikipedia sourcing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024687/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/dietary-cholesterol-from-physiology-to-cardiovascular-risk/2AD4493E735677B9298CCC17FA790539

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743 71.11.5.2 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Opening lead paragraph (May 2023)
The statement "Cholesterol is any of a class of certain organic molecules called lipids." is wrong. Cholesterol is not "any of a class", it is a single, (stereo)specific chemical compound. It is a member of the sterols, which (as stated and explained in the Sterol article) are a class of steroid, having a 3-hydroxy group, not a modified steroid. The scope note for the MeSH term Cholesterol reads "The principal sterol of all higher animals, distributed in body tissues, especially the brain and spinal cord, and in animal fats and oils". This could be the basis for a revised opening to the lead section, namely: "'Cholesterol is the principal sterol (a steroid with a hydoxy group in position 3) of all higher animals, distributed in body tissues, especially the brain and spinal cord, and in animal fats and oils."

Also, the sentence "When chemically isolated, it is a yellowish crystalline solid." is at odds with the entry "Appearance = white crystalline powder" under Properties. Yellow coloration may have resulted from imperfect purification in earlier isolations and the inclusion of the sentence in the lead section is probably unnecessary anyway.

The present text of the lead section needs to be corrected ASAP. Unless there are any adverse comments or suggested improvements, I'll edit the text. Douglian30 (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I concur that the opening statement is completely wrong. I can't believe it has lingered like that for so long. 2600:1700:30D0:FB50:E120:5E30:D391:C54F (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the confirmation. I have now made the edit. Douglian30 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexuang, Dannymrowr, Brendado425, Mparagas18. Peer reviewers: Pkhouder.

This article is jargon.
This article is too difficult to read for a layman, and the Simple English article is noninformative and only contains three paragraphs.

This article needs to be edited in order to make it legible by the average user. Wikipedia is not an advanced chemistry textbook. 2600:100B:B108:3D3A:0:C:938D:A901 (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The article seems completely readable to me, and I'm certainly not any sort of expert in biochemistry. Any terms that may not be familiar to you can be clicked so you can be taken to the relevant article, which should clarify any unfamiliar terms or concepts. Wikipedia is not a chemistry textbook, but it is also not WebMD. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge, and nothing else containing such a vast collection of information exists, nor has ever existed in all of human history. Let's please not take any of that information away by dumbing things down.


 * The answer, in my opinion, is that the article for "cholesterol" in the simple English Wikipedia should be expanded, not that this article in the regular English version of Wikipedia should be reduced. Vontheri (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Additionally, if you wouldn't mind to let us know specifically what information about cholesterol you were hoping to find in the article but were unable to find, and in what specific ways you found the article difficult to read (preferably with specific examples), then I'd say there is a good chance that we could figure out a way to address your concerns without detracting from the quality and quantity of information provided in the article. Vontheri (talk) 09:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The present detail in the article is probably useful to many readers and should not be reduced. An alternative approach to including simplified description would be to convert sections such as Physiology and Biosynthesis and regulation to sub-articles, allowing simplified summaries to be provided in the main article.
 * Cholesterol provides a more fundamental, and perhaps unique, problem. On the one hand, there is the compound, with the modes of biosynthesis and regulation of that structural moiety.  On the other, the word "cholesterol" is used in medical and lay language in composite terms such as blood cholesterol and bad cholesterol.  Ideally, these usages might merit a separate main article, but this may not be practical because of the large number of articles that link to Cholesterol.  Otherwise, there might be a section on Cholesterol terminology that lists, defines and explains such terms.  Also, the lead section should have an additional paragraph to alert to this aspect, perhaps saying "Having very low solubility in water, cholesterol in the body normally occurs within complex assemblies such as the lipoproteins that transport fats.  Terms such as blood cholesterol and bad cholesterol refer to cholesterol in such assemblies."
 * The article does need improvement in order to cater for a wide range of users, but the changes should be agreed by consensus. Hopefully there will be further inputs to this discussion. Douglian30 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that overall, the article is readable, but could be improved. It is especially important that the lead is readable and that it summarizes the entire article. An important section is the clinical signifance which was not mentioned, so I added a brief mention that included the term "bad cholesterol" in this edit. Boghog (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Your addition is fine, but why the words "may increase" instead of something like "can increase" or "does increase" or, probably the most optimal way of wording it, just "increases"? The medical consensus is pretty strong regarding the link between elevated LDL and cardiovascular disease. It's a pretty fringe belief to imply that it isn't consensus. Also, if LDL is mentioned in the lede, then I'd also think a sentence mentioning the link between low HDL and cardiovascular risk. Saying "Elevated levels of cholesterol in the blood[...]" without mentioning that HDL is an exception could lead to misconceptions for those for whom cholesterol is a new concept. Vontheri (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Disagreement in numbers
The "Clinical Significance" section, the last paragraph, seems to have some weird numbers in it. One example: "These groups were more likely to die of cancer, liver diseases, and mental diseases with very low total cholesterol, of 186 mg/dL (10.3 mmol/L) and lower." -- 10.3 is not very low, it's very high. Someone should run a check there. --CopperKettle (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)