Author Topic: The Great Cholesterol Myth - Relative vs. Absolute Reduction of Risk  (Read 329 times)

bmjohnson35

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 67
MM Community,

I recently finished reading "The Great Cholesterol Myth" and I was wondering if anyone can answer a question pertaining to the reduction in risk referenced throughout the book.  The author's explained the difference between absolute and relative risk.  According to the authors, the healthcare industry often uses relative risk to measure the results of their studies supporting the use of statins or diets of low fat consumption.  It's a common manipulation/representation of statistics to support an agenda. What is not clear is which type of risk is being referenced in Chapter 7 of the book.  Chapter 7 covers supplements that may reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease.  In other words, when they reference a reduction in risk when taking a particular supplement, are they quoting relative reduction in risk (like the Statin studies) or are they referencing absolute reduction in risk?  The author's dedicated a section of the book showing this misleading tactic, but they don't clarify what they are referencing when they get to the supplements section.  One of the author's has a web site and I just found out that he sells supplements online.  Now I wonder if the studies referenced later in the book is guilty of the misleading tactic of referencing relative risk reduction when describing the benefits of various supplements.

If I can't get an answer, my next step will be to start looking up each specific study referenced, to see if I can find out.

Thanks,
Bernie