The Cholesterol Study the AHA Is Afraid to Discuss

When I do a public-facing summary and critical appraisal of a study I typically do it verbally and free-form. No script, no notes. After years of journal clubbing and presenting lectures and talks, that’s how I feel most comfortable.

I’m trying something new this week and I'd like your feedback. I write my own material, though ever since I lost the world’s best editor (my mom) I use AI for copy editing (proof reading, basically). But today I asked AI to craft an 800-word summary of the audio.

For those who stick to the written word, I would love your feedback. Does this work for you? How you feel about it? You can also read the transcript (click above) to see if reading that is better or worse than the AI summary below.

It’s an experiment. I’m open to any input. Thank youuu!

RT is fully reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber!

In March 2025, the New England Journal of Medicine published the most definitive study in history on cardiovascular risk factors: “Global Effect of Cardiovascular Risk Factors on Lifetime Estimates.”

The Global Cardiovascular Risk Consortium assembled individual-level data from 2.1 million people in 133 prospective cohorts across 39 countries and six continents. These were the world’s best cardiovascular databases: large, carefully conducted studies in which participants were interviewed, examined, tested, and followed over many years—sometimes for decades.

The researchers examined five classic cardiovascular risk factors at age 50: smoking, diabetes, hypertension, abnormal body weight, and elevated cholesterol. They then estimated how each factor was associated with years of life and years lived free from cardiovascular disease.

Having all five factors was devastating. Compared with people who had none, women with all five lost 13 years free from cardiovascular disease and 15 years of life. Men lost 11 cardiovascular-disease-free years and 12 years of life.

The individual findings confirmed what the best prior data had suggested. Smoking and diabetes were the worst factors, each associated with approximately five or six years of life lost. Hypertension was associated with roughly two years lost. Abnormal body weight had little association at the conventional cutoff, although extreme obesity was associated with shorter life.

Then there was cholesterol.

The researchers defined elevated cholesterol as non-HDL of at least 130 mg/dL—the guideline-based definition used by the American Heart Association. By that definition, elevated cholesterol was not associated with more cardiovascular disease or an earlier death. It was associated with the opposite: approximately an additional year of life and an additional year free from cardiovascular disease.

Only when cholesterol reached the highest one or two percent of the regional distribution—roughly an LDL >190—did it become associated with shorter life and more cardiovascular disease. In other words, the study found risk only at extremely high levels that overlap with the familial-hypercholesterolemia range. For ordinary people labeled as having ‘high cholesterol’ because their LDL is 150 or 160, the standard threshold did not identify increased risk. It identified longer life and less heart disease.

The study also examined what happened when a risk factor present between ages 50 and 55 disappeared between ages 55 and 60. Eliminating hypertension and stopping smoking were both associated with additional years of life. But moving from high to normal cholesterol produced no benefit. Again, the result ran in the opposite direction: 0.2 years of life lost for women and 0.3 for men, although the differences were not statistically significant.

This was observational research, not a randomized trial, so it cannot prove cause and effect. I am not saying that people should deliberately raise their cholesterol to live longer. But even in observational data, the lack of association is a powerful finding.

This central finding is unavoidable. In the largest and most rigorous cardiovascular-risk data set ever assembled, elevated cholesterol according to the AHA’s standard definition was not a risk factor for heart disease or death. Smoking, diabetes, and hypertension were confirmed. Cholesterol was not.

That finding strikes at the foundation of the Lipid Hypothesis—the governing theory of modern cardiology, which says cholesterol causes heart disease and that lowering cholesterol will therefore prevent disease and extend life. The Lipid Hypothesis and this study cannot both be true. If elevated cholesterol is not a risk factor, it cannot be the primary cause of heart disease.

Yet the American Heart Association’s new cholesterol guideline doubles down. It expands cholesterol testing and treatment while never citing, discussing, or even acknowledging this study. A guideline devoted to cholesterol completely ignores the largest and best study ever published on cholesterol as a cardiovascular risk factor.

And the cardiology community is not discussing it. I recently spoke with a brilliant, trained lipidologist who had never heard of the paper. When he read it, he was aghast.

The weird silence is why this study matters. Read it. Bring it to your doctor. Discuss it with your friends. Challenge it if you can. But the world’s most important data on cardiovascular risk cannot simply be ignored because it threatens cardiology’s governing theory.