![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
" 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)
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.
In the third graph under "Plasma transport and regulation of absorption", it says:
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 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)
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 | T@lk 20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I deleted vitamins A, E and K in the introduction. They are not made from cholesterol. Mkatan ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
When this article is converted to PDF, blank pages are generated, pages 9 & 10 Repagers ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Shaddix ( talk · contribs), 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 | T@lk 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
PMID 16340654 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 | 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)
Shaddix, this is the benefit of using the talk page. For ease of referencing, the source Adh30 suggested ( doi: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 | T@lk 20:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cholesterol/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Rated "top" as high school/SAT biology content + general/medical interest due to role in atherosclerosis. - tameeria 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
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. Diptanshu Talk 18:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
@
Zefr: Concerning your
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.
@ 2605:e000:8789:d800:f06b:d12d:7390:3b7a: 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).
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)
@
Zefr: Concerning your
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)
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 (shown in the diagram here). 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)
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)
[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)
"preclinical" means that studies are "first-in-human". Whether
it relevant to actual human physiologyis 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)
"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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
To update guidelines and references for hypercholesterolemia and cholesterol testing.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendado425 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
yes Kmhudson22 ( 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)
Yes Kmhudson22 ( 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)
This study, referenced at the end of the "Hypercholesterolemia" section, is problematic (see lipid hypothesis#THINCS) and should not be cited uncritically.
WP Ludicer ( talk) 16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The “norm” for women is absent 2A00:23C7:9603:5401:CC95:34FB:27DF:1942 ( talk) 12:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743 71.11.5.2 ( talk) 18:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
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.<ref name=pubchem/><ref>{{MeshName|Cholesterol|2013}}</ref>
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)
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 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 "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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
" 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)
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.
In the third graph under "Plasma transport and regulation of absorption", it says:
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 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)
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 | T@lk 20:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I deleted vitamins A, E and K in the introduction. They are not made from cholesterol. Mkatan ( talk) 16:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
When this article is converted to PDF, blank pages are generated, pages 9 & 10 Repagers ( talk) 01:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Shaddix ( talk · contribs), 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 | T@lk 20:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
PMID 16340654 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 | 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)
Shaddix, this is the benefit of using the talk page. For ease of referencing, the source Adh30 suggested ( doi: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 | T@lk 20:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cholesterol/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Rated "top" as high school/SAT biology content + general/medical interest due to role in atherosclerosis. - tameeria 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 05:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
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. Diptanshu Talk 18:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
@
Zefr: Concerning your
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.
@ 2605:e000:8789:d800:f06b:d12d:7390:3b7a: 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).
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)
@
Zefr: Concerning your
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)
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 (shown in the diagram here). 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)
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)
[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)
"preclinical" means that studies are "first-in-human". Whether
it relevant to actual human physiologyis 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)
"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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:23, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
To update guidelines and references for hypercholesterolemia and cholesterol testing.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendado425 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
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)
yes Kmhudson22 ( 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)
Yes Kmhudson22 ( 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)
This study, referenced at the end of the "Hypercholesterolemia" section, is problematic (see lipid hypothesis#THINCS) and should not be cited uncritically.
WP Ludicer ( talk) 16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The “norm” for women is absent 2A00:23C7:9603:5401:CC95:34FB:27DF:1942 ( talk) 12:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
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)
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.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000743 71.11.5.2 ( talk) 18:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
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.<ref name=pubchem/><ref>{{MeshName|Cholesterol|2013}}</ref>
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)
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 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 "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)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)