Fran,
For me, with all due respect, I don't think it's a good idea to tell people visiting this board how NOT to lower their cholesterol... especially when this was the implicit question. Or at least, I wouldn't want my own words to force any doctor's hand in prescribing or re-prescribing a statin, with the overpowering *demand* to take them. We have to look realistically at the overall picture of the current climate of today's health care system. I have been through the maze, and realize the bleak system. Yet, a doctor will be less likely to prescribe statins if he or she sees his patients doing the very things recommended in my post. Just as there has been an overemphasis on cholesterol levels, it's also as important not to 'underemphasize' them either... but to moderate them instead.
BTW, there are many more benefits to niacin than just raising LDL, which is super important in my mind. I think we would both agree that maintaining higher levels of nonoxidized LDL is most important. But niacin also has the ability to elevate natural levels of HGH in the human body, especially significant in absence of lipids. Elevating levels of HGH can not only help lower total cholesterol, in its own right, but help to increase memory, bone density, muscle mass, and decrease body fat. This would be an especially beneficial recommendation to anyone past middle age, with declining levels of hormones. I would recommend the book by Dr. Ronald Klatz, "Grow Young With HGH" in which he also dispenses natural ways to elevate HGH levels.
Also, a good doctor will recommend a liver enzyme test to ANYONE using statins or niacin therapy. After having been tested, my doctor also found my mom to have perfect homocysteine levels. Although, most general practitioners will also (should also) recommend a multivitamin, which will contain the RDA to lower homocysteine. Just to make certain, anyone using niacin should also be sure to take: Folic Acid, Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, and Vitamin C supplementation. Especially important advice for anyone who smokes cigarettes (like my mom) or even drinks coffee, of which both can show a *far higher* more immediate incidence of elevated homocysteine.
Butter is also not bad in moderation. Just a little dab can help greatly lower the glycemic response to high carbohydrates, for instance baked potatoes. There's actually a very corollary relationship between saturated fat and carbohydrates, or fats and the absorption of certain vitamins and minerals. I would *definitely* recommend butter over margarine, especially the hydrogenated stick version. Yet, people can get those very same vitamins and nutrients of butter from whole milk (and meats and vegetables,) and our diets are already so rich in saturated fats. And butter is simply pure saturated fats, unlike some foods containing unsaturated fats masquerading as saturated ones. For instance, if I remember correctly, only something like 11% of olive oil's saturated fats is actually saturated. For this reason, I would also choose olive oil over butter. In fact, I would recommend everyone chart their diets: especially saturated fat, and cholesterol intake for one week. You'd be *shocked* by the amounts already existing in our diets.
However, what canola also offers is a super high amount of Omega 3, absent from many people's diets.... and one of the best Omega 3 to 6 ratios, of almost any cooking oil. Probably the most *essential* oil in our diets is polyunsaturated linoleic acid and alpha-linolenic acids, a claim that cannot be made nearly as well by saturated or monounsaturated. I might even have trouble recommending fish oil to increase Omega 3's in our diet, simply due to the high amount of mercury, PCB's, and other contaminants. And while pharmaceutical grade fish oil (molecularly distilled and free from metals) might be 3-5 times the cost of regular fish oil, at least canola oil is cheap, readily available, and within most people's budgets. Although the benefits of relatively unfiltered fish oil still far outweigh the risks, in my mind.
BTW, contrary to that 2000 article you cited written by Mary Enig, she had only two years later recanted many of her negative claims on Canola. She toned down her language to a much less impactful, less scientific, and far more anecdotal, "We have had reports of allergies to canola, and internet articles describe a variety of symptoms -- tremors, shaking, palsy, lack of coordination, slurred speech, memory problems, blurred vision, problems with urination, numbness and tingling in the extremities, and heart arrhythmias -- that cleared up on discontinuance of canola. None of this has been reported in the medical journals, however." I can only imagine what Mary thinks of Canola in 2006. Of course, let's make a fine distinction between refined cold pressed Canola (rapeseed) oil and high-heat pressed supermarket variety. Don't get me wrong, I respect Dr. Enig's opinion, especially on trans-fats; I just don't appreciate her politicization of nutrition, and food science in general.
I also apologize for the length of my post.