14R
10-06-06, 07:19 AM
I'm 32 years old and for the first time, on my annual check up, my cholesterol level is above 200.
What should I do?
What should I do?
Training & Nutrition - Cholesterol 232. Now what?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.stonecrd
10-06-06, 07:27 AM
You can exercise more and eat 0% fat or go on statins. If you go the drug route be sure to monitor your muscles for aches/pains a common side affect. You may need to try multiple statins to find the one that works best for you. I went from 250 to 167 using statins and exercise. Diet didn't help me much because my problem was genetic based.
slowandsteady
10-06-06, 08:28 AM
You can exercise more and eat 0% fat
If you eat 0% fat, you will die. Not a good idea.
What was the ratio of LDL to HDL? What did your doctor suggest? What were your triglycerides?
Always try diet first. Oatmeal at breakfast instead of eggs may be all that you need to drop the cholesterol.
If you eat 0% fat, you will die. Not a good idea.
What was the ratio of LDL to HDL? What did your doctor suggest? What were your triglycerides?
Always try diet first. Oatmeal at breakfast instead of eggs may be all that you need to drop the cholesterol.
nickw
10-06-06, 08:48 AM
I'm 32 years old and for the first time, on my annual check up, my cholesterol level is above 200.
What should I do?
Curious as to what your diet is like? Any processed foods or unhealthy habits?
What was your ldl/hdl ratio?
What should I do?
Curious as to what your diet is like? Any processed foods or unhealthy habits?
What was your ldl/hdl ratio?
Pat
10-06-06, 08:57 AM
I tend to run over 200 with a more or less "normal" diet.
You can do several things to lose cholesterol.
My current cholesterol is about 170 with 110 LDL and 65 HDL. SO I went from 220 to 170 by getting stringent with my diet.
1) drop as much saturated fat from the diet as possible. Avoid eating margerine, butter, animal fats, trans fats etc. Olive oil and safflower oil are fine.
2) take omega 3 fat tablets
3) eat oatmeal
4) for meat I generally eat chicken and boneless skinless chicken breasts, fish or shell fish. I will eat a red meat about once or twice per week and that is a lean cut.
5) lots of fiber (I don't know if this helps or not) and lots of fruits and vegetables.
6) I generally eat meat only once per day and this is at dinner.
You can do several things to lose cholesterol.
My current cholesterol is about 170 with 110 LDL and 65 HDL. SO I went from 220 to 170 by getting stringent with my diet.
1) drop as much saturated fat from the diet as possible. Avoid eating margerine, butter, animal fats, trans fats etc. Olive oil and safflower oil are fine.
2) take omega 3 fat tablets
3) eat oatmeal
4) for meat I generally eat chicken and boneless skinless chicken breasts, fish or shell fish. I will eat a red meat about once or twice per week and that is a lean cut.
5) lots of fiber (I don't know if this helps or not) and lots of fruits and vegetables.
6) I generally eat meat only once per day and this is at dinner.
14R
10-06-06, 09:04 AM
Thank you for all the replies. I left the paperwork at home, so I'll check the ldl/hdl ratio once I get back.
I went from an athletic (adventure racing) background into graduate school semi-sedentary lifestyle. From 2001 to 2005 I exercised at most twice a week. Just recently got back into biking, but still not doing a disciplined routine.
I believe the origin of the issue is diet: No unhealthy habits (no alcohol, smoke or drugs), but a lot of canned soup and fast food (mostly subway). There is also a genetic factor (my uncle managed to reach 470 at the age of 55 WITH DIET).
Oatmeal at breakfast (with my green tea) will be added as a routine.
The results just came out, so I still haven't heard from the doctor yet.
Once again, thank you for all the replies. This means a lot to me.
I went from an athletic (adventure racing) background into graduate school semi-sedentary lifestyle. From 2001 to 2005 I exercised at most twice a week. Just recently got back into biking, but still not doing a disciplined routine.
I believe the origin of the issue is diet: No unhealthy habits (no alcohol, smoke or drugs), but a lot of canned soup and fast food (mostly subway). There is also a genetic factor (my uncle managed to reach 470 at the age of 55 WITH DIET).
Oatmeal at breakfast (with my green tea) will be added as a routine.
The results just came out, so I still haven't heard from the doctor yet.
Once again, thank you for all the replies. This means a lot to me.
Moistfly
10-06-06, 09:30 AM
Don't want to hijack the thread but I have a quick question ... just had my cholesterol checked as well and had 50 LDL and 80 HDL ... but my "total" was listed as 190 ... is there a third kind of cholesterol that's not broken down, or was someones math a little off?
SimiCyclist
10-06-06, 10:35 AM
Don't want to hijack the thread but I have a quick question ... just had my cholesterol checked as well and had 50 LDL and 80 HDL ... but my "total" was listed as 190 ... is there a third kind of cholesterol that's not broken down, or was someones math a little off?
Total Cholesterol = LDL + HDL + VLDL. (VLDL = Triglycerides / 5).
Total Cholesterol = LDL + HDL + VLDL. (VLDL = Triglycerides / 5).
Moistfly
10-06-06, 10:46 AM
Thanks :)
Garfield Cat
10-06-06, 12:02 PM
I think the more exercise you do, the better. But there's the diminishing returns too. Pro cyclists may do 10,000 miles a year. But you don't need to be near that to be in good shape. Some say exercise at least 3 times a week. I like 5 times a week. Depends on age, current physical condition. Diet and exercise will help you get that cholesterol down. Exercise will also benefit you in other ways.
mrfreddy
10-06-06, 12:50 PM
you have a few choices:
1) Don't worry about it. There is actually no proof whatsoever that cholesterol has anything to do with CHD. Hard to believe given all the hysteria out there but there it is. absolutely true.
2) Go low fat. This will lower your LDL a little bit, but will also raise your tryglicerides a LOT and will lower your HDL a LOT. Not good news. More bad news - because your tryglicerides will be high, you can also be sure that your LDL is mostly the dangerous small dense kind.
3) Take statins. Really bad idea. Lots of side effects, and no really good reason to risk it.
4) Restrict carbohydrates, eat all the quality animal protein and fat you want (included harmless saturated fats). Your LDL number will stay about the same, though the make up of your LDL will change to the large fluffy desireable kind instead of the small dense dangerous kind. Your tryglicerides will drop dramatically (good) and your HDL will rise dramatically (also good).
How can I tell you this, when it flies in the face of what "everyone knows" and is in fact in direct opposition to what the American Heart Assoc. and other official entities will tell you?
Let me tell you my story.
I just turned 50 and I have been low carbing for 4 years. Before that I had a terrible diet.
I had my own lipid profile done recently. It was almost 300, hahaa. 283 actually. My LDL was 201., HDL was 67, tryg. were 76. I also had asked for a LDL subtype test, which of course revealed my high LDL was mostly the large safe kind. Nonetheless, the doc. tried to insist I go on meds, which of course I refused. Just to humor her and to satisfy my own curiosity and to shut up my numerous nutritional critics, I let her talk me into getting a CT Angiogram done. This is a test that measures the calcium in your arteries, revealing the presence of plaque.
The not so amazing result? Zero calcium. ie. zero plaque.
1) Don't worry about it. There is actually no proof whatsoever that cholesterol has anything to do with CHD. Hard to believe given all the hysteria out there but there it is. absolutely true.
2) Go low fat. This will lower your LDL a little bit, but will also raise your tryglicerides a LOT and will lower your HDL a LOT. Not good news. More bad news - because your tryglicerides will be high, you can also be sure that your LDL is mostly the dangerous small dense kind.
3) Take statins. Really bad idea. Lots of side effects, and no really good reason to risk it.
4) Restrict carbohydrates, eat all the quality animal protein and fat you want (included harmless saturated fats). Your LDL number will stay about the same, though the make up of your LDL will change to the large fluffy desireable kind instead of the small dense dangerous kind. Your tryglicerides will drop dramatically (good) and your HDL will rise dramatically (also good).
How can I tell you this, when it flies in the face of what "everyone knows" and is in fact in direct opposition to what the American Heart Assoc. and other official entities will tell you?
Let me tell you my story.
I just turned 50 and I have been low carbing for 4 years. Before that I had a terrible diet.
I had my own lipid profile done recently. It was almost 300, hahaa. 283 actually. My LDL was 201., HDL was 67, tryg. were 76. I also had asked for a LDL subtype test, which of course revealed my high LDL was mostly the large safe kind. Nonetheless, the doc. tried to insist I go on meds, which of course I refused. Just to humor her and to satisfy my own curiosity and to shut up my numerous nutritional critics, I let her talk me into getting a CT Angiogram done. This is a test that measures the calcium in your arteries, revealing the presence of plaque.
The not so amazing result? Zero calcium. ie. zero plaque.
14R
10-06-06, 12:50 PM
Triglycerides:137
LDL: 160
HDL: 45
CHOL/HDLC ratio: 5.2
So, will I survive?
LDL: 160
HDL: 45
CHOL/HDLC ratio: 5.2
So, will I survive?
ModoVincere
10-06-06, 01:55 PM
Triglycerides:137
LDL: 160
HDL: 45
CHOL/HDLC ratio: 5.2
So, will I survive?
LDL 160 is a little high. Most Dr's now recommend 130 or lower for this Cholesterol type. You gan generally lower this type of Cholesterol by consuming foods containing high levels of soluble fiber. This type of fiber will bind with the bile produced by your body from cholesterol and allow the bound bile to pass on through. Without the soluble fiber, the body will reabsorb the majority of bile and recycle it.
The passing of this bile forces the liver to extract more cholesterol from the blood to create more bile.
Good sources of soluble fiber are oatmeal, apples (pectin), plums, and dried beans.
You HDL is in the normal range, but at the lower end of normal. Dr's are usually concerned if the HDL is less than 45 in males. In fact a low HDL can be a signal of metabolic syndrome (also known as insulin resistance). You can generally raise your HDL numbers via exercise. Omega 3 consumption may also help but I know of no studies supporting this position.
Triglycerides generally are best kept under 150. Yours are in the "normal" range. If they were higher, I would sugest reducing your consumption of simple carbohydrates. Triglycerides are made by the liver when too many sugars flood the bloodstream at one time. They are a storage mechanism for excess calories. Alcohol consumption can also raise ones Trigs.
Take what I wrote with a grain of salt, and talk it over with your Dr. before making any drastic changes.
FWIW, I am a pre-med student. My Cholesterol profile looks like the following (taken in early Sept.):
LDL 74
HDL 74
Trigs 62
for a total Chol. of 160
LDL: 160
HDL: 45
CHOL/HDLC ratio: 5.2
So, will I survive?
LDL 160 is a little high. Most Dr's now recommend 130 or lower for this Cholesterol type. You gan generally lower this type of Cholesterol by consuming foods containing high levels of soluble fiber. This type of fiber will bind with the bile produced by your body from cholesterol and allow the bound bile to pass on through. Without the soluble fiber, the body will reabsorb the majority of bile and recycle it.
The passing of this bile forces the liver to extract more cholesterol from the blood to create more bile.
Good sources of soluble fiber are oatmeal, apples (pectin), plums, and dried beans.
You HDL is in the normal range, but at the lower end of normal. Dr's are usually concerned if the HDL is less than 45 in males. In fact a low HDL can be a signal of metabolic syndrome (also known as insulin resistance). You can generally raise your HDL numbers via exercise. Omega 3 consumption may also help but I know of no studies supporting this position.
Triglycerides generally are best kept under 150. Yours are in the "normal" range. If they were higher, I would sugest reducing your consumption of simple carbohydrates. Triglycerides are made by the liver when too many sugars flood the bloodstream at one time. They are a storage mechanism for excess calories. Alcohol consumption can also raise ones Trigs.
Take what I wrote with a grain of salt, and talk it over with your Dr. before making any drastic changes.
FWIW, I am a pre-med student. My Cholesterol profile looks like the following (taken in early Sept.):
LDL 74
HDL 74
Trigs 62
for a total Chol. of 160
blue_nose
10-06-06, 02:01 PM
you have a few choices:
1) Don't worry about it. There is actually no proof whatsoever that cholesterol has anything to do with CHD. Hard to believe given all the hysteria out there but there it is. absolutely true.
2) Go low fat. This will lower your LDL a little bit, but will also raise your tryglicerides a LOT and will lower your HDL a LOT. Not good news. More bad news - because your tryglicerides will be high, you can also be sure that your LDL is mostly the dangerous small dense kind.
3) Take statins. Really bad idea. Lots of side effects, and no really good reason to risk it.
4) Restrict carbohydrates, eat all the quality animal protein and fat you want (included harmless saturated fats). Your LDL number will stay about the same, though the make up of your LDL will change to the large fluffy desireable kind instead of the small dense dangerous kind. Your tryglicerides will drop dramatically (good) and your HDL will rise dramatically (also good).
How can I tell you this, when it flies in the face of what "everyone knows" and is in fact in direct opposition to what the American Heart Assoc. and other official entities will tell you?
Let me tell you my story.
I just turned 50 and I have been low carbing for 4 years. Before that I had a terrible diet.
I had my own lipid profile done recently. It was almost 300, hahaa. 283 actually. My LDL was 201., HDL was 67, tryg. were 76. I also had asked for a LDL subtype test, which of course revealed my high LDL was mostly the large safe kind. Nonetheless, the doc. tried to insist I go on meds, which of course I refused. Just to humor her and to satisfy my own curiosity and to shut up my numerous nutritional critics, I let her talk me into getting a CT Angiogram done. This is a test that measures the calcium in your arteries, revealing the presence of plaque.
The not so amazing result? Zero calcium. ie. zero plaque.
There are a few dodgy aspects to this post. For example, you can reduce your saturated fats without impacting your HDL. There are many ways to take in “good” fats to build your HDL through diet.
Not sure what you mean about proof, but numerous studies over the past few years have shown a high correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease.
My best advice to anyone is not to take medical advice from an internet forum. You can use the web as a research tool (from medical resources). However, speak to a real healthcare professional.
1) Don't worry about it. There is actually no proof whatsoever that cholesterol has anything to do with CHD. Hard to believe given all the hysteria out there but there it is. absolutely true.
2) Go low fat. This will lower your LDL a little bit, but will also raise your tryglicerides a LOT and will lower your HDL a LOT. Not good news. More bad news - because your tryglicerides will be high, you can also be sure that your LDL is mostly the dangerous small dense kind.
3) Take statins. Really bad idea. Lots of side effects, and no really good reason to risk it.
4) Restrict carbohydrates, eat all the quality animal protein and fat you want (included harmless saturated fats). Your LDL number will stay about the same, though the make up of your LDL will change to the large fluffy desireable kind instead of the small dense dangerous kind. Your tryglicerides will drop dramatically (good) and your HDL will rise dramatically (also good).
How can I tell you this, when it flies in the face of what "everyone knows" and is in fact in direct opposition to what the American Heart Assoc. and other official entities will tell you?
Let me tell you my story.
I just turned 50 and I have been low carbing for 4 years. Before that I had a terrible diet.
I had my own lipid profile done recently. It was almost 300, hahaa. 283 actually. My LDL was 201., HDL was 67, tryg. were 76. I also had asked for a LDL subtype test, which of course revealed my high LDL was mostly the large safe kind. Nonetheless, the doc. tried to insist I go on meds, which of course I refused. Just to humor her and to satisfy my own curiosity and to shut up my numerous nutritional critics, I let her talk me into getting a CT Angiogram done. This is a test that measures the calcium in your arteries, revealing the presence of plaque.
The not so amazing result? Zero calcium. ie. zero plaque.
There are a few dodgy aspects to this post. For example, you can reduce your saturated fats without impacting your HDL. There are many ways to take in “good” fats to build your HDL through diet.
Not sure what you mean about proof, but numerous studies over the past few years have shown a high correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease.
My best advice to anyone is not to take medical advice from an internet forum. You can use the web as a research tool (from medical resources). However, speak to a real healthcare professional.
sfontain
10-06-06, 02:53 PM
1) Don't worry about it. There is actually no proof whatsoever that cholesterol has anything to do with CHD. Hard to believe given all the hysteria out there but there it is. absolutely true.
Get real. There is no "proof" that cholesterol causes heart disease in the same way there is no "proof" that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
It really bothers me how many self-professed health experts we have here who are willing to potentially jeopardize a person's life by disseminating their own unresearched opinions as hard fact.
Get real. There is no "proof" that cholesterol causes heart disease in the same way there is no "proof" that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
It really bothers me how many self-professed health experts we have here who are willing to potentially jeopardize a person's life by disseminating their own unresearched opinions as hard fact.
mrfreddy
10-06-06, 03:44 PM
Get real. There is no "proof" that cholesterol causes heart disease in the same way there is no "proof" that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
It really bothers me how many self-professed health experts we have here who are willing to potentially jeopardize a person's life by disseminating their own unresearched opinions as hard fact.
Your botheredness is understandable, considering how we all have been led to believe that of course cholesterol is bad, and of course sat. fat is bad. However, when you look into the origins of these theories, and to the actual state of the science supporting them, you might be in for a shock.
Anway, I know you wont believe me, so go ahead and try to find one, just one, well controlled double blind study that conclusively proves a direct causative link between high cholesterol and CHD.
(Hint: no such thing exists).
It really bothers me how many self-professed health experts we have here who are willing to potentially jeopardize a person's life by disseminating their own unresearched opinions as hard fact.
Your botheredness is understandable, considering how we all have been led to believe that of course cholesterol is bad, and of course sat. fat is bad. However, when you look into the origins of these theories, and to the actual state of the science supporting them, you might be in for a shock.
Anway, I know you wont believe me, so go ahead and try to find one, just one, well controlled double blind study that conclusively proves a direct causative link between high cholesterol and CHD.
(Hint: no such thing exists).
!!Comatoa$ted
10-06-06, 03:56 PM
Get real. There is no "proof" that cholesterol causes heart disease in the same way there is no "proof" that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
It really bothers me how many self-professed health experts we have here who are willing to potentially jeopardize a person's life by disseminating their own unresearched opinions as hard fact.
Although I do not wholeheartedly agree with what was said by Freddy, there are always 2 sides to every story. Each person is an individual and will react to different things differently.
IMO people who come here to talk about health interests are coming here to get opinions, not proven health facts. It may be that a good way for someone to learn about what is best for them is to see what has worked for other people in the past. Seeing what has worked for other people may give them opposing areas to look at, as well as direction, when, and if they decide to study the available research out there.
At one time I thought there was only one right way to eat; avoiding saturated fats and the like, but in coming here and hearing others' views I have found that it is not so clear cut when it comes to fat and cholesterol. I have read research where fat and cholesterol appeared to have caused many health problems, and at the same time I have read research that has shown that eating a diet high in saturated fats after an MI is much more beneficial than not eating them.
It seems in my brief study of research and statistics that research shows what ones hypothesis can only be disproved by research, and rarely, if ever proven, especially when dealing with individuals.
Of course there is always more to learn and I doubt I will ever be right beyond a doubt.
It really bothers me how many self-professed health experts we have here who are willing to potentially jeopardize a person's life by disseminating their own unresearched opinions as hard fact.
Although I do not wholeheartedly agree with what was said by Freddy, there are always 2 sides to every story. Each person is an individual and will react to different things differently.
IMO people who come here to talk about health interests are coming here to get opinions, not proven health facts. It may be that a good way for someone to learn about what is best for them is to see what has worked for other people in the past. Seeing what has worked for other people may give them opposing areas to look at, as well as direction, when, and if they decide to study the available research out there.
At one time I thought there was only one right way to eat; avoiding saturated fats and the like, but in coming here and hearing others' views I have found that it is not so clear cut when it comes to fat and cholesterol. I have read research where fat and cholesterol appeared to have caused many health problems, and at the same time I have read research that has shown that eating a diet high in saturated fats after an MI is much more beneficial than not eating them.
It seems in my brief study of research and statistics that research shows what ones hypothesis can only be disproved by research, and rarely, if ever proven, especially when dealing with individuals.
Of course there is always more to learn and I doubt I will ever be right beyond a doubt.
blue_nose
10-06-06, 04:31 PM
Your botheredness is understandable, considering how we all have been led to believe that of course cholesterol is bad, and of course sat. fat is bad. However, when you look into the origins of these theories, and to the actual state of the science supporting them, you might be in for a shock.
Anway, I know you wont believe me, so go ahead and try to find one, just one, well controlled double blind study that conclusively proves a direct causative link between high cholesterol and CHD.
(Hint: no such thing exists).
And the same logic can be applied for a "causative" link between cigarette smoke and cancer - please...
There are have been many studies that have shown a high correlation between cholesterol levels and incidence of heart disease. Here is one of such study:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/20/2835
Anway, I know you wont believe me, so go ahead and try to find one, just one, well controlled double blind study that conclusively proves a direct causative link between high cholesterol and CHD.
(Hint: no such thing exists).
And the same logic can be applied for a "causative" link between cigarette smoke and cancer - please...
There are have been many studies that have shown a high correlation between cholesterol levels and incidence of heart disease. Here is one of such study:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/20/2835
AnthonyG
10-06-06, 05:09 PM
I'm also in the camp that say's a cholesterol level of 232 is perfectly normal and healthy so don't sweat it.
Here's some articles,
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/3/550
Weston A Price Foundation, http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html
http://www.azeri.org/Azeri/az_latin/manuscripts/longevity/english/longevity_english.html
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
Now a quick story about statistical correlation. Say your house is on fire. The fireman turn up to the blaze and maybe they save your house and maybe they don't but anyway they turned up to do their best. The police turn up to see what happened later, they see firemen EVERYWHERE, put 2 and 2 together and say hey, "the firemen burned down the house".
Seems ludicrious doesn't it but that's the state of evidence against cholesterol and why statistical correlation is such a nonsense argument that needs to be used more carefuly by only those who know what they are doing. Cholesterol is a powerful antioxidant and its an important part of your bodies self repair mechanism. A total cholesterol level of 232 is perfectly healthy and desirable.
Now this is not to say that you wouldn't benefit from more fresh food in your diet and less canned/takeaway food but don't sweat a reading like that.
Regards, Anthony
Here's some articles,
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/3/550
Weston A Price Foundation, http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/index.html
http://www.azeri.org/Azeri/az_latin/manuscripts/longevity/english/longevity_english.html
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
Now a quick story about statistical correlation. Say your house is on fire. The fireman turn up to the blaze and maybe they save your house and maybe they don't but anyway they turned up to do their best. The police turn up to see what happened later, they see firemen EVERYWHERE, put 2 and 2 together and say hey, "the firemen burned down the house".
Seems ludicrious doesn't it but that's the state of evidence against cholesterol and why statistical correlation is such a nonsense argument that needs to be used more carefuly by only those who know what they are doing. Cholesterol is a powerful antioxidant and its an important part of your bodies self repair mechanism. A total cholesterol level of 232 is perfectly healthy and desirable.
Now this is not to say that you wouldn't benefit from more fresh food in your diet and less canned/takeaway food but don't sweat a reading like that.
Regards, Anthony
DannoXYZ
10-06-06, 06:09 PM
Now a quick story about statistical correlation. Say your house is on fire. The fireman turn up to the blaze and maybe they save your house and maybe they don't but anyway they turned up to do their best. The police turn up to see what happened later, they see firemen EVERYWHERE, put 2 and 2 together and say hey, "the firemen burned down the house".
Seems ludicrious doesn't it but that's the state of evidence against cholesterol and why statistical correlation is such a nonsense argument that needs to be used more carefuly by only those who know what they are doing. Cholesterol is a powerful antioxidant and its an important part of your bodies self repair mechanism. A total cholesterol level of 232 is perfectly healthy and desirable.Just because you don't have a clear cause-and-effect pathway defined, it doesn't mean there isn't a correlation. The fireman example is a simple attempt at finding cause-and-effect mechanism, however, you have to test that hypothesis of "the firemen burned down the house", using the scientific method of gathering data and testing your hypothesis. You have to be more sophisticated with statistical analysis of the evidence. For example, you have to examine a large number of cases and separate them into two classes:
1. burning-houses where there is an abundance of fireman...
2. burning-houses where there is a low number or no fireman at all..
Then analyze the final outcomes of these fires. What is the statistical chances of having a complete pile of ashes vs. a merely damaged home and how does that correlate with the presence and numbers of fireman? This will clearly exonerate the fireman as the "cause" of the fires. And even if you do not witness their actions, the final results, the "effects" of their presence shows them to be of benefit.
That's the same kind of statistical analysis done with cholesterol and fats, even though the exact mechanism has yet to be discovered.
Get real. There is no "proof" that cholesterol causes heart disease in the same way there is no "proof" that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
It really bothers me how many self-professed health experts we have here who are willing to potentially jeopardize a person's life by disseminating their own unresearched opinions as hard fact.Exactly, you have to look not at just qualitative ideas, you have to connect those ideas to quantifiable numbers. While no one knows the exact mechanism behind smoking & cancer and fats/cholesterol & CHD, the vast volume of research does show:
1. total cholesterol level is irrelevant as predictor of CHD, however
2. there IS a correlation between LDL/HDL balance and CHD, high-levels of LDL are indeed connected to CHD
3. statins are worthless, while they may reduce total cholesterol levels, they do nothing to change the LDL/HDL balance
Part of the problem here is that people are too simplistic when they hear and talk about "cholesterol", even doctors. First, we're talking about THREE completely different things:
1. Cholesterol is a very small lipid and pre-cursor to steroids and is used to make a large portion of the hormones in your body. It's also a primary component of every cell-wall in your body. It's created in large amounts in your liver and is transported throughout your body by HDL/LDLs. Actual ingested amounts of cholesterol has minimal impacts on your total cholesterol readings or HDL/LDL ratios.
2. HDL are much larger lipids with a protein attached. The protein allows it to be soluble in blood and to transport cholesterol around the body. Cholesterol merely takes a ride on HDL and goes back to the liver. HDLs are liquid and oily at room-temperature.
3. LDL are even larger lipids with proteins attached. These bring cholesterol out of the liver and moves it around the body. At room temperatures, LDLs are solid fats, like lard.
The exact debate should centre around HOW the cholesterol, HDLs and LDLs interact and contribute to CHD. That mechanism is STILL unknown. However, we do have a vast database of studies to reference. The strongest significant correlation is that eating saturated/trans/hydrogenated fats contributes the most to raising total cholesterol and increases LDL ratio to HDL and a strong connection to CHD. What appears to work counter to that is cutting out saturated fats, simple carbs and eating oils with omega-3 fatty acids, like olive & fish oils.
Seems ludicrious doesn't it but that's the state of evidence against cholesterol and why statistical correlation is such a nonsense argument that needs to be used more carefuly by only those who know what they are doing. Cholesterol is a powerful antioxidant and its an important part of your bodies self repair mechanism. A total cholesterol level of 232 is perfectly healthy and desirable.Just because you don't have a clear cause-and-effect pathway defined, it doesn't mean there isn't a correlation. The fireman example is a simple attempt at finding cause-and-effect mechanism, however, you have to test that hypothesis of "the firemen burned down the house", using the scientific method of gathering data and testing your hypothesis. You have to be more sophisticated with statistical analysis of the evidence. For example, you have to examine a large number of cases and separate them into two classes:
1. burning-houses where there is an abundance of fireman...
2. burning-houses where there is a low number or no fireman at all..
Then analyze the final outcomes of these fires. What is the statistical chances of having a complete pile of ashes vs. a merely damaged home and how does that correlate with the presence and numbers of fireman? This will clearly exonerate the fireman as the "cause" of the fires. And even if you do not witness their actions, the final results, the "effects" of their presence shows them to be of benefit.
That's the same kind of statistical analysis done with cholesterol and fats, even though the exact mechanism has yet to be discovered.
Get real. There is no "proof" that cholesterol causes heart disease in the same way there is no "proof" that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.
It really bothers me how many self-professed health experts we have here who are willing to potentially jeopardize a person's life by disseminating their own unresearched opinions as hard fact.Exactly, you have to look not at just qualitative ideas, you have to connect those ideas to quantifiable numbers. While no one knows the exact mechanism behind smoking & cancer and fats/cholesterol & CHD, the vast volume of research does show:
1. total cholesterol level is irrelevant as predictor of CHD, however
2. there IS a correlation between LDL/HDL balance and CHD, high-levels of LDL are indeed connected to CHD
3. statins are worthless, while they may reduce total cholesterol levels, they do nothing to change the LDL/HDL balance
Part of the problem here is that people are too simplistic when they hear and talk about "cholesterol", even doctors. First, we're talking about THREE completely different things:
1. Cholesterol is a very small lipid and pre-cursor to steroids and is used to make a large portion of the hormones in your body. It's also a primary component of every cell-wall in your body. It's created in large amounts in your liver and is transported throughout your body by HDL/LDLs. Actual ingested amounts of cholesterol has minimal impacts on your total cholesterol readings or HDL/LDL ratios.
2. HDL are much larger lipids with a protein attached. The protein allows it to be soluble in blood and to transport cholesterol around the body. Cholesterol merely takes a ride on HDL and goes back to the liver. HDLs are liquid and oily at room-temperature.
3. LDL are even larger lipids with proteins attached. These bring cholesterol out of the liver and moves it around the body. At room temperatures, LDLs are solid fats, like lard.
The exact debate should centre around HOW the cholesterol, HDLs and LDLs interact and contribute to CHD. That mechanism is STILL unknown. However, we do have a vast database of studies to reference. The strongest significant correlation is that eating saturated/trans/hydrogenated fats contributes the most to raising total cholesterol and increases LDL ratio to HDL and a strong connection to CHD. What appears to work counter to that is cutting out saturated fats, simple carbs and eating oils with omega-3 fatty acids, like olive & fish oils.
AnthonyG
10-06-06, 06:59 PM
Just because you don't have a clear cause-and-effect pathway defined, it doesn't mean there isn't a correlation. The fireman example is a simple attempt at finding cause-and-effect mechanism, however, you have to test that hypothesis of "the firemen burned down the house", using the scientific method of gathering data and testing your hypothesis. You have to be more sophisticated with statistical analysis of the evidence. For example, you have to examine a large number of cases and separate them into two classes:
1. burning-houses where there is an abundance of fireman...
2. burning-houses where there is a low number or no fireman at all..
Then analyze the final outcomes of these fires. What is the statistical chances of having a complete pile of ashes vs. a merely damaged home and how does that correlate with the presence and numbers of fireman? This will clearly exonerate the fireman as the "cause" of the fires. And even if you do not witness their actions, the final results, the "effects" of their presence shows them to be of benefit.
That's the same kind of statistical analysis done with cholesterol and fats, even though the exact mechanism has yet to be discovered.
Well you have faith that a more sophisticated analysis of the evidence HAS taken place while I don't. The problem is that a fundamental failure of science has taken place, ie they tried to fix a problem that didn't exist in the first place but everyone is in too far now to admit that it was the wrong road to follow in the first place and rather than taking a balanced look at the evidence they are still trying as hard as possible to prove an incorrect theory and that's the problem.
Its a total act of faith and those who eventualy break with this faith are labeled traitors and heretics.
Regards, Anthony
1. burning-houses where there is an abundance of fireman...
2. burning-houses where there is a low number or no fireman at all..
Then analyze the final outcomes of these fires. What is the statistical chances of having a complete pile of ashes vs. a merely damaged home and how does that correlate with the presence and numbers of fireman? This will clearly exonerate the fireman as the "cause" of the fires. And even if you do not witness their actions, the final results, the "effects" of their presence shows them to be of benefit.
That's the same kind of statistical analysis done with cholesterol and fats, even though the exact mechanism has yet to be discovered.
Well you have faith that a more sophisticated analysis of the evidence HAS taken place while I don't. The problem is that a fundamental failure of science has taken place, ie they tried to fix a problem that didn't exist in the first place but everyone is in too far now to admit that it was the wrong road to follow in the first place and rather than taking a balanced look at the evidence they are still trying as hard as possible to prove an incorrect theory and that's the problem.
Its a total act of faith and those who eventualy break with this faith are labeled traitors and heretics.
Regards, Anthony
ericgu
10-06-06, 09:31 PM
Thank you for all the replies. I left the paperwork at home, so I'll check the ldl/hdl ratio once I get back.
I went from an athletic (adventure racing) background into graduate school semi-sedentary lifestyle. From 2001 to 2005 I exercised at most twice a week. Just recently got back into biking, but still not doing a disciplined routine.
I believe the origin of the issue is diet: No unhealthy habits (no alcohol, smoke or drugs), but a lot of canned soup and fast food (mostly subway). There is also a genetic factor (my uncle managed to reach 470 at the age of 55 WITH DIET).
Oatmeal at breakfast (with my green tea) will be added as a routine.
The results just came out, so I still haven't heard from the doctor yet.
Once again, thank you for all the replies. This means a lot to me.
It's most likely your diet. My advice:
1) Get rid of the refined carbohydrates.
The soup has a lot of carbs, as does the sandwich (depending on the bread). Subway has a wrap that is whole grain and has lots of fiber. Switch to whole grains - whole white, brown rice, etc.
Also, get rid of the sugar, except for fruit.
2) Reduce the saturated fat.
3) Vegetable oils are okay, nuts are okay, etc.
Or, just go buy "south beach diet", and go from there.
I went from an athletic (adventure racing) background into graduate school semi-sedentary lifestyle. From 2001 to 2005 I exercised at most twice a week. Just recently got back into biking, but still not doing a disciplined routine.
I believe the origin of the issue is diet: No unhealthy habits (no alcohol, smoke or drugs), but a lot of canned soup and fast food (mostly subway). There is also a genetic factor (my uncle managed to reach 470 at the age of 55 WITH DIET).
Oatmeal at breakfast (with my green tea) will be added as a routine.
The results just came out, so I still haven't heard from the doctor yet.
Once again, thank you for all the replies. This means a lot to me.
It's most likely your diet. My advice:
1) Get rid of the refined carbohydrates.
The soup has a lot of carbs, as does the sandwich (depending on the bread). Subway has a wrap that is whole grain and has lots of fiber. Switch to whole grains - whole white, brown rice, etc.
Also, get rid of the sugar, except for fruit.
2) Reduce the saturated fat.
3) Vegetable oils are okay, nuts are okay, etc.
Or, just go buy "south beach diet", and go from there.
geezerx
10-07-06, 06:40 AM
My wife and I just got tested and both of our LDL levels are too high. Our doctor gave us a list of good and bad foods. You might want to recontact the doc and see if he/she can provide you with some more nutritional guidance.
geezerx
10-07-06, 07:33 AM
You might want to visit the www.lipitor.com site and click on the 'Living Healthy' tab. It will provide some food ideas for you.
obsidian
10-07-06, 08:16 AM
Read The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo. It may help you see the "heretical" side. It has made a difference for me. Control you blood sugar, eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and save your liver from the statins.
wabbit
10-07-06, 12:46 PM
i wouldn't freak out about it...by the way were you fasting when you had the test? That can make a difference.
A few years ago my cholesterol was tested high during a regular blood test, and i got worried because heart disease runs in my family. If anything my cholesterol was always LOW. As it turns out, it was due to a thyroid condition. ANd when I tested again it was normal, and I was tested when fasting. SInce then it's been normal. THere could be something that runs in your family to keep an eye on, and it's entirely possible that next time you'll test normal. in the meantime, try and watch the cholesterol in your diet, don't eat too many eggs, forget the butter, etc. The good thing about low cholesterol diets is that it's not like you have to eat birdseed and lettuce.
A few years ago my cholesterol was tested high during a regular blood test, and i got worried because heart disease runs in my family. If anything my cholesterol was always LOW. As it turns out, it was due to a thyroid condition. ANd when I tested again it was normal, and I was tested when fasting. SInce then it's been normal. THere could be something that runs in your family to keep an eye on, and it's entirely possible that next time you'll test normal. in the meantime, try and watch the cholesterol in your diet, don't eat too many eggs, forget the butter, etc. The good thing about low cholesterol diets is that it's not like you have to eat birdseed and lettuce.
Roody
10-07-06, 11:39 PM
To help raise HDL: Exercise (preferably 7 days/week) and a diet with moderate levels of "good" fats (mostly monounsaturated, along with Omega 3 polyunsaturated fats--olive oil, canola oil, nuts, fish oil).
To help lower LDL: Fiber, especially soluble fiber, from fruits, vegetables, oatmeal, whole grains. Limit saturated fats, avoid trans fats, reduce polunsaturated fats of the Omega 6 variety (peanut oil, corn oil, vegetable oil< etc.)
See on the internet: American Heart Association, WebMD, whfoods.com. Avoid extremist pseudo-scientists like Weston Price and the caveman diet.
Ask your doctor about trying diet and exercise for at least six months before going to drugs. Besides statins (which I take), there are other classes of drugs that lower LDL. Each class has its own benefits and side effects. Some drugs may also raise HDL.
To help lower LDL: Fiber, especially soluble fiber, from fruits, vegetables, oatmeal, whole grains. Limit saturated fats, avoid trans fats, reduce polunsaturated fats of the Omega 6 variety (peanut oil, corn oil, vegetable oil< etc.)
See on the internet: American Heart Association, WebMD, whfoods.com. Avoid extremist pseudo-scientists like Weston Price and the caveman diet.
Ask your doctor about trying diet and exercise for at least six months before going to drugs. Besides statins (which I take), there are other classes of drugs that lower LDL. Each class has its own benefits and side effects. Some drugs may also raise HDL.
sfrider
10-08-06, 02:10 AM
Don't want to hijack the thread but I have a quick question ... just had my cholesterol checked as well and had 50 LDL and 80 HDL ... but my "total" was listed as 190 ... is there a third kind of cholesterol that's not broken down, or was someones math a little off?
Your LDL and HDL are very good, in fact LDL < 70 is excellent. Putting you on medication for that makes no sense whatsoever! Your triglycerides are pretty high though, do you eat/drink a lot of fructose? If so, reduce it to no more than one soda a day or so. Also, avoid saturated fats, and eliminate trans fats, and your triglycerides should plummet. Consider tossing a couple of heaping tablespoons of oat bran in your breakfast cereal and protein drink. Don't eat sugar bomb cereal, and don't forget milk is loaded with simple sugars. Oh, and if you take a whey protein supplement, make sure it's an isolate and not a concentrate. (Although some concentrates also have very low levels of milk cholesterol, sat.fat and sugar, an isolate is chemically pure and will have only whatever it's flavored with. No BGH and other crap, harmless or not, it doesn't belong in a human body.)
Your LDL and HDL are very good, in fact LDL < 70 is excellent. Putting you on medication for that makes no sense whatsoever! Your triglycerides are pretty high though, do you eat/drink a lot of fructose? If so, reduce it to no more than one soda a day or so. Also, avoid saturated fats, and eliminate trans fats, and your triglycerides should plummet. Consider tossing a couple of heaping tablespoons of oat bran in your breakfast cereal and protein drink. Don't eat sugar bomb cereal, and don't forget milk is loaded with simple sugars. Oh, and if you take a whey protein supplement, make sure it's an isolate and not a concentrate. (Although some concentrates also have very low levels of milk cholesterol, sat.fat and sugar, an isolate is chemically pure and will have only whatever it's flavored with. No BGH and other crap, harmless or not, it doesn't belong in a human body.)
Roody
10-08-06, 08:26 AM
... just had my cholesterol checked as well and had 50 LDL and 80 HDL ... but my "total" was listed as 190 ...
Can you recheck those numbers? It seems more likely that LDL was 80, and HDL was 50. Still, great numbers. Good for you!
Can you recheck those numbers? It seems more likely that LDL was 80, and HDL was 50. Still, great numbers. Good for you!
AnthonyG
10-08-06, 04:58 PM
See on the internet: American Heart Association, WebMD, whfoods.com. Avoid extremist pseudo-scientists like Weston Price and the caveman diet.
OK I had to bite.
What's extremist about the Weston A Price Foundation?
One organisation isn't EXTREMIST just because another organisation/group/political group say's it is although given the current state of American politics you could be forgiven for believing this.
The Weston A Price Foundation is the HEIGHT of CONSERVATISM! They're a group of traditionalists who are saying hang on just a minute. Where's YOUR scientific evidence to justify turning away from traditional animal fats in the human diet and where's YOUR evidence as to the safety of the promoted alternatives.
OK they're chalenging the athority of self proclaimed experts but could you call them a group of extremists. Not likely.
Regards, Anthony
OK I had to bite.
What's extremist about the Weston A Price Foundation?
One organisation isn't EXTREMIST just because another organisation/group/political group say's it is although given the current state of American politics you could be forgiven for believing this.
The Weston A Price Foundation is the HEIGHT of CONSERVATISM! They're a group of traditionalists who are saying hang on just a minute. Where's YOUR scientific evidence to justify turning away from traditional animal fats in the human diet and where's YOUR evidence as to the safety of the promoted alternatives.
OK they're chalenging the athority of self proclaimed experts but could you call them a group of extremists. Not likely.
Regards, Anthony
nickw
10-09-06, 08:55 AM
OK I had to bite.
What's extremist about the Weston A Price Foundation?
One organisation isn't EXTREMIST just because another organisation/group/political group say's it is although given the current state of American politics you could be forgiven for believing this.
The Weston A Price Foundation is the HEIGHT of CONSERVATISM! They're a group of traditionalists who are saying hang on just a minute. Where's YOUR scientific evidence to justify turning away from traditional animal fats in the human diet and where's YOUR evidence as to the safety of the promoted alternatives.
OK they're chalenging the athority of self proclaimed experts but could you call them a group of extremists. Not likely.
Regards, Anthony
I have to agree, they are conservative....I wouldnt consider 1000 year old asian diets or traditional african tribesman diets to be 'extremist'-
What's extremist about the Weston A Price Foundation?
One organisation isn't EXTREMIST just because another organisation/group/political group say's it is although given the current state of American politics you could be forgiven for believing this.
The Weston A Price Foundation is the HEIGHT of CONSERVATISM! They're a group of traditionalists who are saying hang on just a minute. Where's YOUR scientific evidence to justify turning away from traditional animal fats in the human diet and where's YOUR evidence as to the safety of the promoted alternatives.
OK they're chalenging the athority of self proclaimed experts but could you call them a group of extremists. Not likely.
Regards, Anthony
I have to agree, they are conservative....I wouldnt consider 1000 year old asian diets or traditional african tribesman diets to be 'extremist'-
nickw
10-09-06, 09:15 AM
"Vegetarians usually have lower cholesterol than other people and they eat little animal fat. But vegetarians differ from the rest of the human population in more than their diet. They usually smoke less, they are usually thinner, and they usually exercise more often than other people. Whether it is their diet, or their other living habits, or perhaps something else that lowers their blood cholesterol is unknown.
The fact that blood cholesterol is influenced by the diet in laboratory experiments and clinical trials but not in people who live without the interference of scientists and dieticians has a simple explanation: blood cholesterol is controlled by more powerful factors than the diet. If these factors are kept reasonably constant in a laboratory experiment or a clinical trial, it is possible to see the influence of the diet alone."
Interesting exerpt from this link, http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth3.htm
The fact that blood cholesterol is influenced by the diet in laboratory experiments and clinical trials but not in people who live without the interference of scientists and dieticians has a simple explanation: blood cholesterol is controlled by more powerful factors than the diet. If these factors are kept reasonably constant in a laboratory experiment or a clinical trial, it is possible to see the influence of the diet alone."
Interesting exerpt from this link, http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth3.htm
jazzy_cyclist
10-09-06, 10:03 AM
Only 10-15 years ago, a cholesterol of 230 was considered okay, so I wouldn't panic.
My situation was similar a few years ago. After the test, I went on a pretty strict diet and workout regimen, and I was able to lower mine to 190, but I found that I really had difficulty maintaining that when work starting claiming more and more hours. So I succumbed to Lipitor which I take every other day. Now I'm down to about 160-170 comfortably (I still work at eating a good diet) the last time I was checked. So it is really is controllable. Also, when it was lower previously, my weight had dropped quite a bit - so I think if you lose weight, it can also help your cholesterol (not necessarily that weight loss itself does it, but there's another correlation).
Live long and prosper:) .
My situation was similar a few years ago. After the test, I went on a pretty strict diet and workout regimen, and I was able to lower mine to 190, but I found that I really had difficulty maintaining that when work starting claiming more and more hours. So I succumbed to Lipitor which I take every other day. Now I'm down to about 160-170 comfortably (I still work at eating a good diet) the last time I was checked. So it is really is controllable. Also, when it was lower previously, my weight had dropped quite a bit - so I think if you lose weight, it can also help your cholesterol (not necessarily that weight loss itself does it, but there's another correlation).
Live long and prosper:) .
ModoVincere
10-09-06, 12:29 PM
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4524
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/09/MNGGU5GV0V1.DTL
A couple links to some information regarding cholesterol and CHD.
Also, one of the newer lines of thought in controlling CHD is inflammation. So called "silent inflammation" may be responsible for much of the arterial damage seen in CHD. However, cholesterol is also affiliated
with this scenario as well, and therefore should not be ignored.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/03/09/MNGGU5GV0V1.DTL
A couple links to some information regarding cholesterol and CHD.
Also, one of the newer lines of thought in controlling CHD is inflammation. So called "silent inflammation" may be responsible for much of the arterial damage seen in CHD. However, cholesterol is also affiliated
with this scenario as well, and therefore should not be ignored.
14R
10-10-06, 10:32 AM
Thank you for all the help. My diet and lifestyle are both full of room for improvement, so in 3-6 months I'll re-address the issue medically if lifestyle change and diet does not work by itself. Even if 230 is normal as shown in some studies, having it lowered can't be bad. :)
Once again, thank you for all replies.
Once again, thank you for all replies.
Larks
10-11-06, 08:57 AM
I understand everybody is entitled to opinions, and I would encourage everybody to question any advice they are given.
However... some of the posts here are more than a little irresponsible. The only people who can accurately address your problems are the people directly involved in your healthcare. Your doctor will be able to provide you with most of the information you will need.
Just a quick note though, exercise is a great way to increase HDL levels, as are some natural fats. Cholesterol is an essential part of the body's metabolism so eating 0% fat would be a bad idea. While there are some truths to various post that cholesterol has not been 100% proven as a cause of CHD, there is a proven relationship between the levels of your cholesterol (in particular LDL and TG's). Saying that you should ignore cholesterol just because it isn't 100% proven is a pretty naive notion but again I stress that everybody should be entitled to take control of their own health care.
I urge the OP to speak to your doctor, and if in any doubt at all, question them. But from my experience the risk profile of statins is actually pretty low for the proven benifit in lipid lowering.
If it were me I would happily use a statin or similar. Statins are infact the highest self prescribed drug in my country among doctors, and when I get a little older I will probably follow suit (poor family history).
Good luck with the lifestyle modification. Get the exercise and diet right and you should be fine!
James
However... some of the posts here are more than a little irresponsible. The only people who can accurately address your problems are the people directly involved in your healthcare. Your doctor will be able to provide you with most of the information you will need.
Just a quick note though, exercise is a great way to increase HDL levels, as are some natural fats. Cholesterol is an essential part of the body's metabolism so eating 0% fat would be a bad idea. While there are some truths to various post that cholesterol has not been 100% proven as a cause of CHD, there is a proven relationship between the levels of your cholesterol (in particular LDL and TG's). Saying that you should ignore cholesterol just because it isn't 100% proven is a pretty naive notion but again I stress that everybody should be entitled to take control of their own health care.
I urge the OP to speak to your doctor, and if in any doubt at all, question them. But from my experience the risk profile of statins is actually pretty low for the proven benifit in lipid lowering.
If it were me I would happily use a statin or similar. Statins are infact the highest self prescribed drug in my country among doctors, and when I get a little older I will probably follow suit (poor family history).
Good luck with the lifestyle modification. Get the exercise and diet right and you should be fine!
James
Moistfly
10-11-06, 10:39 AM
Can you recheck those numbers? It seems more likely that LDL was 80, and HDL was 50. Still, great numbers. Good for you!
Yeah, I realized after reading some responses that I had my LDL and HDL mixed up ... and thought the LDL was "good" which is why I gave it the lower number ... live and learn :o
Yeah, I realized after reading some responses that I had my LDL and HDL mixed up ... and thought the LDL was "good" which is why I gave it the lower number ... live and learn :o
Moistfly
10-11-06, 10:47 AM
Your LDL and HDL are very good, in fact LDL < 70 is excellent. Putting you on medication for that makes no sense whatsoever! Your triglycerides are pretty high though, do you eat/drink a lot of fructose? If so, reduce it to no more than one soda a day or so. Also, avoid saturated fats, and eliminate trans fats, and your triglycerides should plummet. Consider tossing a couple of heaping tablespoons of oat bran in your breakfast cereal and protein drink. Don't eat sugar bomb cereal, and don't forget milk is loaded with simple sugars. Oh, and if you take a whey protein supplement, make sure it's an isolate and not a concentrate. (Although some concentrates also have very low levels of milk cholesterol, sat.fat and sugar, an isolate is chemically pure and will have only whatever it's flavored with. No BGH and other crap, harmless or not, it doesn't belong in a human body.)
Yeah I had my numbers transposed but my Dr. said my cholesterol wasn't anything to worry about and that my triglycerides were probably skewed a little (though still high) because I wasn't able to properly fast before the test ... he recommended taking some rice/pasta out of my diet (I eat one of the two with dinner pretty much every day), no soda or cereals for me, though I do drink whey shakes (ON which uses a mix of isolates and concentrates) ... maybe I'll try and find a brand that's pure isolates :)
Yeah I had my numbers transposed but my Dr. said my cholesterol wasn't anything to worry about and that my triglycerides were probably skewed a little (though still high) because I wasn't able to properly fast before the test ... he recommended taking some rice/pasta out of my diet (I eat one of the two with dinner pretty much every day), no soda or cereals for me, though I do drink whey shakes (ON which uses a mix of isolates and concentrates) ... maybe I'll try and find a brand that's pure isolates :)
mrfreddy
10-11-06, 11:05 AM
I understand everybody is entitled to opinions, and I would encourage everybody to question any advice they are given.
However... some of the posts here are more than a little irresponsible. The only people who can accurately address your problems are the people directly involved in your healthcare. Your doctor will be able to provide you with most of the information you will need.
Blind trust in your doctor can be very, very dangerous.
like I said before, my doctor would have been very happy to put me on statins. Being a well-informed pateint, I of course refused, so she talked me into taking a CT Angiogram. Which of course revealed I have absolutely no need to be on statins, despite a supposedly dangerously high LDL of 201.
so who is being irresponsible, me or my doctor? she should have known that my high HDL, and my low triglycerides indicated that my LDL number, tho high, was nothing to worry about, because low trig. indicates that your LDL is mostly the safe large fluffy kind. She should have known that but apparently she didnt.
If I had simply listened to her, I might very well have been talked into taking drugs that have numerous side effects, some of them permanent.
So, educate yourself first, learn about LDL subtypes, small dense LDL versus large LDL, triglycerides and their relationship to LDL size (Low trig. almost always means you have large LDL), how your diet directly affects your trigl and HDL, etc. etc.
Look into the actual history of the lipid hypothesis and look into the actual science supporting it.
THEN talk to your doctor. And dont be suprised if you know more than he/she does.
However... some of the posts here are more than a little irresponsible. The only people who can accurately address your problems are the people directly involved in your healthcare. Your doctor will be able to provide you with most of the information you will need.
Blind trust in your doctor can be very, very dangerous.
like I said before, my doctor would have been very happy to put me on statins. Being a well-informed pateint, I of course refused, so she talked me into taking a CT Angiogram. Which of course revealed I have absolutely no need to be on statins, despite a supposedly dangerously high LDL of 201.
so who is being irresponsible, me or my doctor? she should have known that my high HDL, and my low triglycerides indicated that my LDL number, tho high, was nothing to worry about, because low trig. indicates that your LDL is mostly the safe large fluffy kind. She should have known that but apparently she didnt.
If I had simply listened to her, I might very well have been talked into taking drugs that have numerous side effects, some of them permanent.
So, educate yourself first, learn about LDL subtypes, small dense LDL versus large LDL, triglycerides and their relationship to LDL size (Low trig. almost always means you have large LDL), how your diet directly affects your trigl and HDL, etc. etc.
Look into the actual history of the lipid hypothesis and look into the actual science supporting it.
THEN talk to your doctor. And dont be suprised if you know more than he/she does.
nickw
10-11-06, 12:59 PM
Blind trust in your doctor can be very, very dangerous.
like I said before, my doctor would have been very happy to put me on statins. Being a well-informed pateint, I of course refused, so she talked me into taking a CT Angiogram. Which of course revealed I have absolutely no need to be on statins, despite a supposedly dangerously high LDL of 201.
so who is being irresponsible, me or my doctor? she should have known that my high HDL, and my low triglycerides indicated that my LDL number, tho high, was nothing to worry about, because low trig. indicates that your LDL is mostly the safe large fluffy kind. She should have known that but apparently she didnt.
If I had simply listened to her, I might very well have been talked into taking drugs that have numerous side effects, some of them permanent.
So, educate yourself first, learn about LDL subtypes, small dense LDL versus large LDL, triglycerides and their relationship to LDL size (Low trig. almost always means you have large LDL), how your diet directly affects your trigl and HDL, etc. etc.
Look into the actual history of the lipid hypothesis and look into the actual science supporting it.
THEN talk to your doctor. And dont be suprised if you know more than he/she does.
Well put...not to mention that the 'herd' mentality applies to doctors as well. Not to long ago margin was being pawned off on unsuspecting patients to control cholesterol levels.
like I said before, my doctor would have been very happy to put me on statins. Being a well-informed pateint, I of course refused, so she talked me into taking a CT Angiogram. Which of course revealed I have absolutely no need to be on statins, despite a supposedly dangerously high LDL of 201.
so who is being irresponsible, me or my doctor? she should have known that my high HDL, and my low triglycerides indicated that my LDL number, tho high, was nothing to worry about, because low trig. indicates that your LDL is mostly the safe large fluffy kind. She should have known that but apparently she didnt.
If I had simply listened to her, I might very well have been talked into taking drugs that have numerous side effects, some of them permanent.
So, educate yourself first, learn about LDL subtypes, small dense LDL versus large LDL, triglycerides and their relationship to LDL size (Low trig. almost always means you have large LDL), how your diet directly affects your trigl and HDL, etc. etc.
Look into the actual history of the lipid hypothesis and look into the actual science supporting it.
THEN talk to your doctor. And dont be suprised if you know more than he/she does.
Well put...not to mention that the 'herd' mentality applies to doctors as well. Not to long ago margin was being pawned off on unsuspecting patients to control cholesterol levels.
slowandsteady
10-11-06, 01:22 PM
So in a 2 minute search of pubmed....I got this. Don't listen to the nuts and their uninformed weak attempts to explain biostatistics. ANY epidemological study can only use correlation and not causation. Something about feeding a bunch of volunteers a lethal diet and then counting the dead doesn't sit well with the FDA. However, there are thousands of causation studies in animals that show that cholesterol and fatty diets are unhealthy...atherosclerosis, heart disease, death, diabetes, and so on.
Part of being a scientist is to be able to translate what the stats mean by having an deep knowledge of the biology. Having statistical significance only means that there is a difference. R values only show correlation. The formulas don't explain the why or the how. And THAT is what science is about...not some p values.
The fireman example just illustrates what happens when you blindly follow statistics. Scientists don't blindly follow stats. Anthony may blindly follow stats....the local newsbunny may blindly follow stats, but scientists don't. Stats are a tool, but are far from the whole answer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Part of being a scientist is to be able to translate what the stats mean by having an deep knowledge of the biology. Having statistical significance only means that there is a difference. R values only show correlation. The formulas don't explain the why or the how. And THAT is what science is about...not some p values.
The fireman example just illustrates what happens when you blindly follow statistics. Scientists don't blindly follow stats. Anthony may blindly follow stats....the local newsbunny may blindly follow stats, but scientists don't. Stats are a tool, but are far from the whole answer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)
yak
10-11-06, 01:34 PM
In addition to diet and exercise, plant stanols or sterols can be used to block the absorption of cholesterol in foods. Take 'em before each meal. They don't work as well as statins, but they do work, and have miniscule (if any) side effects.
andrello
10-11-06, 01:46 PM
I'm 32 years old and for the first time, on my annual check up, my cholesterol level is above 200.
What should I do?
Before taking medication stick to this along with regular strenuous exercise:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3031890
http://www.deliciousdecisions.org/
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2X_Shopping_List_Basic_Ingredients_For_A_Healthy_Kitchen.asp?sitearea=PED
And get back to us in 6 weeks with your new cholesterol levels.
Edit --> All under your MD's supervision of course.
What should I do?
Before taking medication stick to this along with regular strenuous exercise:
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3031890
http://www.deliciousdecisions.org/
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2X_Shopping_List_Basic_Ingredients_For_A_Healthy_Kitchen.asp?sitearea=PED
And get back to us in 6 weeks with your new cholesterol levels.
Edit --> All under your MD's supervision of course.
!!Comatoa$ted
10-11-06, 02:32 PM
Is it possible that there is more than one way to lead a healthy life?
ModoVincere
10-11-06, 02:33 PM
So in a 2 minute search of pubmed....I got this. Don't listen to the nuts and their uninformed weak attempts to explain biostatistics. ANY epidemological study can only use correlation and not causation. Something about feeding a bunch of volunteers a lethal diet and then counting the dead doesn't sit well with the FDA. However, there are thousands of causation studies in animals that show that cholesterol and fatty diets are unhealthy...atherosclerosis, heart disease, death, diabetes, and so on.
Part of being a scientist is to be able to translate what the stats mean by having an deep knowledge of the biology. Having statistical significance only means that there is a difference. R values only show correlation. The formulas don't explain the why or the how. And THAT is what science is about...not some p values.
The fireman example just illustrates what happens when you blindly follow statistics. Scientists don't blindly follow stats. Anthony may blindly follow stats....the local newsbunny may blindly follow stats, but scientists don't. Stats are a tool, but are far from the whole answer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Great post!
Part of being a scientist is to be able to translate what the stats mean by having an deep knowledge of the biology. Having statistical significance only means that there is a difference. R values only show correlation. The formulas don't explain the why or the how. And THAT is what science is about...not some p values.
The fireman example just illustrates what happens when you blindly follow statistics. Scientists don't blindly follow stats. Anthony may blindly follow stats....the local newsbunny may blindly follow stats, but scientists don't. Stats are a tool, but are far from the whole answer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Great post!
Bikepacker67
10-11-06, 03:51 PM
For those that want to stay off the statins, you might give Niacin (http://intelegen.com/nutrients/niacin.htm) a try.
AnthonyG
10-11-06, 04:04 PM
So in a 2 minute search of pubmed....I got this. Don't listen to the nuts and their uninformed weak attempts to explain biostatistics. ANY epidemological study can only use correlation and not causation. Something about feeding a bunch of volunteers a lethal diet and then counting the dead doesn't sit well with the FDA. However, there are thousands of causation studies in animals that show that cholesterol and fatty diets are unhealthy...atherosclerosis, heart disease, death, diabetes, and so on.
Part of being a scientist is to be able to translate what the stats mean by having an deep knowledge of the biology. Having statistical significance only means that there is a difference. R values only show correlation. The formulas don't explain the why or the how. And THAT is what science is about...not some p values.
The fireman example just illustrates what happens when you blindly follow statistics. Scientists don't blindly follow stats. Anthony may blindly follow stats....the local newsbunny may blindly follow stats, but scientists don't. Stats are a tool, but are far from the whole answer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Here's the first line of this study,
BACKGROUND: Statins may be of potential benefit in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) due to modulation of neurohormones and their antioxidant, antiinflammatory, and antifibrotic properties.
Antioxidant?
Antiinflammatory?
Eat your vegetables and fruit people! Statins are a DANGEROUS and expensive way to get your antioxidants. It is widely achnowledged now that the only bennifit that can be truly attributed to statins is that it has antioxidant/antiinflammatory properties and it has NOTHING to do with its cholesterol lowering properties.
Regards, Anthony
Part of being a scientist is to be able to translate what the stats mean by having an deep knowledge of the biology. Having statistical significance only means that there is a difference. R values only show correlation. The formulas don't explain the why or the how. And THAT is what science is about...not some p values.
The fireman example just illustrates what happens when you blindly follow statistics. Scientists don't blindly follow stats. Anthony may blindly follow stats....the local newsbunny may blindly follow stats, but scientists don't. Stats are a tool, but are far from the whole answer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16520262&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum)
Here's the first line of this study,
BACKGROUND: Statins may be of potential benefit in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) due to modulation of neurohormones and their antioxidant, antiinflammatory, and antifibrotic properties.
Antioxidant?
Antiinflammatory?
Eat your vegetables and fruit people! Statins are a DANGEROUS and expensive way to get your antioxidants. It is widely achnowledged now that the only bennifit that can be truly attributed to statins is that it has antioxidant/antiinflammatory properties and it has NOTHING to do with its cholesterol lowering properties.
Regards, Anthony
Jarery
10-11-06, 09:03 PM
It is widely achnowledged now that the only bennifit that can be truly attributed to statins is that it has antioxidant/antiinflammatory properties and it has NOTHING to do with its cholesterol lowering properties.
To my knowledge the anti-inflammitory properties are in addition to its other properties, and it is specifically these anti-inflammitory properties which make it usefull for doctors to now prescribe to patients post coronary surgery. Thats in addition to its reversal of plaque buildup,etc.
The best advice is to stay healthy thru exercise and diet and not get in a situation where you need to make a choice about taking statins or not.
A far cry different from anthony's interpretation. Of course, advice from the Mayo clinic holds more weight than some guy who refuses a microwave because his cult website told him its bad for humanity.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/statins/CL00010
Heres some more, from John Hopkins.
Study results also helped resolve a long-standing dispute in cardiology about whether or not the early benefits of statin therapy are due to their abilities to lower blood lipid levels or if they were merely the short-term effect of a statin's anti-inflammatory properties. What the researchers found was that LDL cholesterol levels, a key blood lipid indicator to lower in treating heart disease, were lowest in patients with the greatest amount of plaque reduction.
"The direct correlation was proof that, indeed, the early benefits of statin therapy resulted from its lipid-lowering properties," said Lima.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2004/10_11_04.html
Ya, sure looks 'widely know' that its only the anti inflammitory aspects...........Nice 'scientific fact' you keep claiming your wap society is based on.
To my knowledge the anti-inflammitory properties are in addition to its other properties, and it is specifically these anti-inflammitory properties which make it usefull for doctors to now prescribe to patients post coronary surgery. Thats in addition to its reversal of plaque buildup,etc.
The best advice is to stay healthy thru exercise and diet and not get in a situation where you need to make a choice about taking statins or not.
A far cry different from anthony's interpretation. Of course, advice from the Mayo clinic holds more weight than some guy who refuses a microwave because his cult website told him its bad for humanity.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/statins/CL00010
Heres some more, from John Hopkins.
Study results also helped resolve a long-standing dispute in cardiology about whether or not the early benefits of statin therapy are due to their abilities to lower blood lipid levels or if they were merely the short-term effect of a statin's anti-inflammatory properties. What the researchers found was that LDL cholesterol levels, a key blood lipid indicator to lower in treating heart disease, were lowest in patients with the greatest amount of plaque reduction.
"The direct correlation was proof that, indeed, the early benefits of statin therapy resulted from its lipid-lowering properties," said Lima.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2004/10_11_04.html
Ya, sure looks 'widely know' that its only the anti inflammitory aspects...........Nice 'scientific fact' you keep claiming your wap society is based on.
ericgu
10-11-06, 10:26 PM
Read The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo. It may help you see the "heretical" side. It has made a difference for me. Control you blood sugar, eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables and save your liver from the statins.
That's pretty close to what South Beach says (and how I eat...)
That's pretty close to what South Beach says (and how I eat...)
AnthonyG
10-12-06, 07:10 AM
I don't think much of the links you've posted Jarery. The Mayo clinic link was just an out and out sales pitch. No science there.
The Hopkins Medicine link is a press release only. Unfortunately I can't get it to download properly at the moment so I don't think I've read all of it but despite its claims to the otherwise I can't see how it has controled for the antiinflamatory/antioxidant bennifits of statins vs cholesterol lowering.
Sick people HAVE high cholesterol. When you get better your blood cholesterol levels go down because it's no longer needed. So, those with less plaque have lower lipids. That's to be expected and it doesn't rate as scientific evidence that statins provided the benefit.
Regards, Anthony
The Hopkins Medicine link is a press release only. Unfortunately I can't get it to download properly at the moment so I don't think I've read all of it but despite its claims to the otherwise I can't see how it has controled for the antiinflamatory/antioxidant bennifits of statins vs cholesterol lowering.
Sick people HAVE high cholesterol. When you get better your blood cholesterol levels go down because it's no longer needed. So, those with less plaque have lower lipids. That's to be expected and it doesn't rate as scientific evidence that statins provided the benefit.
Regards, Anthony