Is high LDL dangerous? It depends - here is the map.
A transparent, evidence-mapped knowledge base on cholesterol, LDL, statins, and cardiovascular risk. Every claim traces back to a verified study; the disagreement between mainstream guidelines and serious skeptics is shown, not hidden; and the strength of the evidence behind each position is made visible.
Start with a question
- ContestedAre the muscle aches people blame on statins usually caused by the drug, or by expecting side effects (the nocebo effect)?
- ContestedDo low-carb and ketogenic diets improve cardiometabolic health, even though they often raise LDL?
- ContestedDo statins help people live longer, or only reduce heart events?
- LeaningDo statins increase the risk of developing diabetes?
- ContestedDo statins meaningfully help people at low risk who have not had a heart event?
- LeaningDoes a coronary artery calcium (CAC) scan predict heart-disease risk, and does a score of zero mean low risk?
- LeaningDoes a Mediterranean diet reduce cardiovascular events?
- ContestedDoes dietary cholesterol (for example from eggs) raise your cardiovascular risk?
- Deeply disputedDoes eating saturated fat raise your cardiovascular risk?
- Broad consensusDoes LDL cholesterol actually cause heart disease?
- LeaningDoes lowering LDL by non-statin means also reduce heart events?
- LeaningDoes metabolic health change how dangerous a given LDL level is?
- LeaningIs ApoB a better measure of risk than standard LDL cholesterol?
- LeaningIs lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), an independent causal risk factor for heart disease?
- Deeply disputedIs very high LDL safe in a lean, metabolically healthy person on a low-carb diet?
Claims
The questions, each with both steelmans and a tier-weighted balance of evidence.
Studies
The verified source records, each with a GRADE-lite tier and its reasoning.
People
Where prominent voices sit, with sources and conflicts of interest.
Design principles
- Traceability over assertion. Every claim links to its evidence.
- Show the disagreement. Both sides, with their evidence.
- Evidence hierarchy is explicit. A meta-analysis and a podcast claim are not weighted equally.
- Conflicts of interest are surfaced - for skeptics and mainstream figures alike.
Read the methodologyfor how evidence is selected, tiered, and presented, orabout this project for the bigger picture and its limitations.