I have a theory about metabolism and cholesterol, and wonder if anyone can confirm it; I have no empirical evidence other than random questions to acquaintances.
Oh, what is my theory? This is it.
Ahem…
My theory that belongs to me is as follows.
Ahem…
This is how it goes.
The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. Ready?
It seems to me that cholesterol and metabolism are proportional. What I mean is that those who have low cholesterol also have a low metabolism, and those with high cholesterol have a high metabolism. This isn’t completely consistent, I specifically know of some exceptions to this, but in general it seems to be a trend.
Is this a coincidence, or are these interrelated? If they are related, do cholesterol lowering medications also lower metabolic rates? I don’t know if there are medications that increase the metabolic rate (although I do remember hearing of some medications to take care of thyroid problems that do this). Would an increase to metabolic rate also increase cholesterol?
I’m not trying to be difficult, but your theory is, well, wrong. Generally, there is NO relationship between metabolic rate and cholesterol levels. For those instances when such a relationship does exist, the opposite pattern is usually present, i.e. low metabolism is associated with high cholesterol.
What makes you think that there’s a “proportional” relationship?
Oversimplifying, one can view cholesterol levels as being dependent on two processes: 1. liver manufacturing of cholesterol 2. removal of cholesterol from the bloodstream.
“Low metabolism” (i.e. hypothyroidism) tends to slow down removal of cholesterol from the blood.
Indeed, “low metabolism” also slows down the synthesis of various cholesterol receptors on liver cells. This means that those cells are less able to get the cholesterol they need for normal functioning. So, to compensate, the liver cells make more cholesterol.
[sub][sup]Note again - this is an oversimplification and not to be taken too literally.[/sup][/sub]
:rolleyes: It really was an honest question. I’m not sure what this brings to the table. I appreciate your later link to Cecil’s column about metabolism. FWIW, Cecil’s column is over 20 years old. I appreciate his dismissal of varying metabolic rates, but must respectfully disagree. I think that the other responders here seem to accept varying metabolic rates as a valid assumption.
No pride of authorship here, happy to find out the truth. However, what I have seen doesn’t necessarily agree. See below.
Agreed (if by decreasing cholesterol you mean LDL, which I believe we are all referring to)
Agreed.
Not sure when it is phrased this way. The folks I know who have cholesterol at the level that induces doctor’s warnings and cholesterol prescriptions (high 200s) are very slim. Can hardly put on weight, in fact. If you were to say that people with low cholesterol levels are slim, I would disagree (see below).
Agreed.
I think that I have a low metabolic rate, and will steadily put on weight if I don’t keep an eye on it. Exercise will keep it off, but even when I haven’t exercised for months (mostly during the winter) my cholesterol levels are consistently in the low 100s.
Agreed.
There isn’t a great deal of emotional investment in this theory, but my (admittedly limited and random) survey of co-workers and friends does not agree with your rebuttals. However, any responder with the word “Nurse” in their name has more credibility than my half baked ideas
Truth is not a democratic process, however. His article stands the tide of time, different levels of cellular metabolisms are so small as to be trivial. That is still a fact.
So all these statements about people with “Faster metabolisms” are not very accurate statements, and are a gross oversimplication of what is truely happening.
Oh, and I appologise for my statment. I was merely trying to answer with a witty way of saying you are comparing apples and oranges, but it came off smarmy, and didn’t really go over well. So, I appologize, I wasn’t trying to be rude or anything like that, sorry if it sounded like that.
Ok, nitpicking aside (sorry, I am a student with a biochemistry major), lets look at why I feel this is apples and oranges. Let’s pretend there is actually a large variance of rates of metabolism between people of the same sex.
Metabolism is a rate. Think of it as the speed in which your food is converted into energy. Your cells break down food into energy at a certain rate.
The level of Cholesterol in your bloodstream is an extent. It is an amount.
Rate can be increased by adding more of a enzyme, but the extent will always be dependent on the products, in this case the food.
So if Mr. “High metabolism” and Mr. “Low metabolism” both eat the same amount of food, the extent of the reactions will be the same. The rate will be the only thing that changes.
Energy (food, fat, etc) doesn’t dissapear, so these people with “High metabolisms” are using more energy somehow if throughout the day they eat the same amount and Mr. “Low metabolism” is gaining weight and Mr. “High metabolism” isn’t.
Even if they are apples and oranges, there could still be a relationship between the two measures.
Clearly, the first thing to determine is whether there is enough data to see a trend.
Plynck refers to people he/she knows, but this is probably a small data set.
I am a “slim” person that has always been put in the “high metabolism” department, and I have low “good” cholesterol (32) and moderate “bad” cholesterol (150). So there is one exception.
No we don’t. There is no relation between cholesterol and “metabolism” other than that due to hypothyroidism (which by the way is in exactly the opposite direction that the OP suggests).
But we do need an accurate definition of “high metabolism” and the like. We would then also need a (relatively simple) way to measure it.
I defy you to provide a useful definition of rapid or slow metabolism that doesn’t hinge upon an appeal to thyroid status - an approach shown long ago to be naive.
Before I am taken to task, I will admit that the discovery of hormones/peptides such as leptin, ghrelin, etc., may soon change our understanding and concept of “high metabolism”, etc.
Fair enough. If it is accurate, then I (and many others) labor under a misconception, one I am happy to give up. It seems a bit strange, when one considers that a teenager can seemingly eat their own weight in french fries, and an elderly person eats like a bird, but I’ll accept your word for it. In a minute…
Wow. Whoosh. Wish I’d picked up on that earlier, it’s actually very humorous. Well, maybe my metabolism hadn’t kicked in when I read it…
I’ll amend my earlier statement; no way will I doubt a nurse *or * a biochemistry major. But, clarification and edification (and edumacation) are always welcome. Really. So here are some further questions:
Which is in contradiction with Cecil’s column, which is why we are pretending, correct?
With you so far.
A bit confused here. Can rate be varied by the addition of an enzyme, or are we still pretending? Is the enzyme from external sources, or produced by one’s body? And won’t extent be based upon two factors; the cholesterol one consumes, and the cholesterol one’s body produces?
I think so. It would indicate to me that those whom I think of as “high metabolic rates” are really just burning more energy during the day through more exercise. It just seems contrary to what I have observed. And do different bodies produce cholesterol at different rates?
An extraordinarily small data set. I’m not trying to connect any dots on a trend line, just throwing a question out there. You can have more data if you can find it, but clearly I need more pie.
Fine, nurses *and * biochemisty students *and * internists. Damn, every time I go to preview, there’s another post. Anyway, please don’t think that I’m proposing a crackpot diet (although the money would come in handy). I had just noticed some alleged correllations that were contrary to what I would have expected. I have no problem at all if you tell me that they are anomalies.
Yes, rate can be varied by addition of an enzyme, just the extent would remain the same. Let me show you an example of why it doesn’t really change anything:
Person 1 has a enzyme count of A per cell, Person 2 has enzyme count of 2A per cell. If both consume food with the energy equivilant of 150 joules, and person A’s cells acomplish this in T time, person 2 would accomplish this in 1/2 T time. (no, not tea time, thats a little later) Both people have consumed the same amount of food, but Person 2 just metabolises his faster. Whether it gets burned, stored, or what, they both have the same extent of energy (150 joules), just one person got done with his supper faster.
It does seem contrary to what many people see, which is probably where there is such a prevelance of this idea of faster metabolisms. There are really people out there that can eat 3 times the amount of food, and not gain a pound, while those people eating 1/3 of what he is eating gains weight. This is why I mentioned the idea of metabolism is a gross oversimplification. There could be (and I am not sure it is fully understood), other factors involved, such as intestinal absorption, certain components in the intestinal tracks that emulsify fats, or even as Cecil stated, the makeup of muscle mass, and even thinner guys could have quite a lot of slow-twitch muscle fibers which use a lot of energy, but don’t take up nearly as much volume as the larger fast-twitch muscle fibers. It it like the MPG on a car, many factors that contribute to the whole, and using a term that has specific meaning (metabolism), confuses the issue.
Don’t forget Doctors (QM), but please don’t consider me an expert and take my word for it. By all means, if it doesn’t sound right, do some independent research and prove me wrong. I am only a third year student, nowhere near an expert.
If we examine 1,000 people, and for every person with a high cholesterol measurement, they also had a high metabolism measurement (assuming we can define metabolism, I understand your issue with that term), and not every person had a high value for either of these two measures, then it would be logical to say that there is a “relationship” between these two things.
Wouldn’t it?
This does not mean one caused the other, it merely means there is a relationship. It could be they are both dependant on a third condition, or even a complex group of conditions.
