Re: Cholesterol numbers in Canada

August 19, 2010

I don't see why we should look at cholesterol numbers at all, since they don't

apply to health, Bonnie You were better off declining the test; my doctor

agreed with me and we skipped it.

Duncan

>

> Hello:

>

> Since I am Diabetic, I thought I should post my numbers HERE (which have

> recently risen perhaps from too many Carbs) and let some of you take a look

> and then give me your opinion. Look below for Target Levels.

>

> Cholesterol 6.70

> LDL Cholesterol 4.25

> HDL Cholesterol 1.68

> Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 4.0

> Triglycerides 1.69

>

> Thanks,

> Bonnie

>

> Target LDL, HDL and total cholesterol:HDL levels

>

> *

>

> An LDL cholesterol level of less than 3.0 mmol/L is best

> *

>

> An HDL above 1.0 mmol/L is best

> *

>

> If your risk is low, your LDL cholesterol should be less than 5.0

> mmol/L and total cholesterol HDL-C ratio should be less than 6.0

> *

>

> If your risk is moderate, your LDL cholesterol should be less than

> 3.5 mmol/ and total cholesterol HDL-C ratio should be less than 5

> *

>

> If your risk is high, your LDL cholesterol should be less than 2.0

> mmol/L and total cholesterol HDL-C ratio should be less than 4.0

> *

>

> An HDL cholesterol level of less than 1.0 mmol/L means you're at

> higher risk for heart disease.

> *

>

> If you have diabetes, your LDL should be less than 2.0 mmol/L.

> *

>

> If you've already had a heart attack your LDL needs to be less than

> 2.0 mmol/L.

>

August 19, 2010

Yes, I agree but I DID want you to look at them just the same for REFERENCE

and for a LOOK SEE and for YOUR OPINION.

Bonnie

_____

From: Coconut Oil

[mailto:Coconut Oil ] On Behalf Of Duncan Crow

Sent: August 19, 2010 3:59 PM

Coconut Oil

Subject: Re: Cholesterol numbers in Canada

I don't see why we should look at cholesterol numbers at all, since they

don't apply to health, Bonnie You were better off declining the test; my

doctor agreed with me and we skipped it.

Duncan

>

> Hello:

>

> Since I am Diabetic, I thought I should post my numbers HERE (which have

> recently risen perhaps from too many Carbs) and let some of you take a

look

> and then give me your opinion. Look below for Target Levels.

>

> Cholesterol 6.70

> LDL Cholesterol 4.25

> HDL Cholesterol 1.68

> Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 4.0

> Triglycerides 1.69

>

> Thanks,

> Bonnie

>

> Target LDL, HDL and total cholesterol:HDL levels

>

> *

>

> An LDL cholesterol level of less than 3.0 mmol/L is best

> *

>

> An HDL above 1.0 mmol/L is best

> *

>

> If your risk is low, your LDL cholesterol should be less than 5.0

> mmol/L and total cholesterol HDL-C ratio should be less than 6.0

> *

>

> If your risk is moderate, your LDL cholesterol should be less than

> 3.5 mmol/ and total cholesterol HDL-C ratio should be less than 5

> *

>

> If your risk is high, your LDL cholesterol should be less than 2.0

> mmol/L and total cholesterol HDL-C ratio should be less than 4.0

> *

>

> An HDL cholesterol level of less than 1.0 mmol/L means you're at

> higher risk for heart disease.

> *

>

> If you have diabetes, your LDL should be less than 2.0 mmol/L.

> *

>

> If you've already had a heart attack your LDL needs to be less than

> 2.0 mmol/L.

>

August 20, 2010

Hi Bonnie,

Because I live in the states I found a website that makes the

conversion to mg/dl, which is what is used here - so here is how your

numbers convert in case others want to chime in:

Total Cholesterol 259 mg/dl

LDL Cholesterol 164.3

HDL Cholesterol 64.9

Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 4.0

Triglycerides 149.6

Unlike Duncan I think that numbers DO matter, though I agree with him

and others that total cholesterol is not the important number. The

cholesterol/HDL ratio, as well as the LDL and triglycerides are much

more indicative of potential risks.

Although your ratio is within range and your triglycerides within

range (though on the high end of normal), your LDL (the bad

cholesterol) does seem somewhat high. I would certainly not start

taking statins, however, as I'm sure you would agree.

Your decision to reduce your carbs is a good one - especially with

diabetes - but I would also seriously consider taking niacin as

someone else recommended. For this you want regular niacin - the kind

that causes a flush - not niacinamide (though this is good for other

things) but also don't get the time-release version. Not only does

the time-release not cause the flush but it is also hard on the liver

whereas the regular is not. The advice is to start out with lower

doses and gradually build up. As an example I take 500 mg once a day

and get a very strong flush. My LDL cholesterol is 118 and

triglicerides 55 (yes, you read that right). I'm 73. There's lots of

good info on niacin here:

http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/answers24.htm

Best,

Dee

Yes, I agree but I DID want you to look at them just the same for

REFERENCE

> and for a LOOK SEE and for YOUR OPINION.

>

> Bonnie

August 20, 2010

OK, your cholesterol numbers are abnormally low and you take supplements to

lower them more. Beyond that you are recommending that others join you in this

folly. At age 73, the statistical prediction is that you are working to decrease

your lifespan.

Aside from your recommendations, the fact is that there is good reason to

believe that taking isolated B vitamins can cause an unhealthy imbalance in the

others. No doubt, natural food sources are far superior to isolated supplements

in all cases. If you are serious about heart heath, you might consider

nattosomes or K2 if you are attracted to isolates.

Also, since cholesterol is the universal band-aid, there is good reason to

believe that low numbers create an environment for cancer and diabetes. Beyond

that, lowering your cholesterol levels undoubtedly creates stress in your system

since it must work overtime to make up for the lowered output.

I predict that statin use will eventually prove conclusively that lower than

average cholesterol numbers are a sign of unhealthy conditions for all ages...

just as low red blood cell counts are an indication of an unhealthy condition.

The main difference is that big pharma did not target red blood cells as a

problem. They have no drug to lower them or they might.

..

The Cholesterol Con http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/mercola51.1.html

>Your decision to reduce your carbs is a good one - especially with diabetes -

but I would also seriously consider taking niacin >as . someone else

recommended. For this you want regular niacin - the kind that causes a flush -

not niacinamide (though this is >good for other things) but also don't get the

time-release version. Not only does the time-release not cause the flush but it

is >lso hard on the liver whereas the regular is not. The advice is to start out

with lower doses and gradually build up. As an> >example I take 500 mg once a

day and get a very strong flush. My LDL cholesterol is 118 and triglicerides 55

(yes, you read >that right). I'm 73. There's lots of good info on niacin here:

August 20, 2010

Huuman (or whatever your name is)

What I didn't mention is that my total cholesterol is 211. Is that,

in your opinion, too low? According to the lab it's high. But since

my HDL is 82 my Cholesterol/HDL ratio is 2.6. Is that ok with you?

It's A-OK with me. And thanks for your suggestions regarding

nattosoms or K2 but it so happens I take both. I also don't take

" isolated " B3. It is balanced by all the B's. I didn't mention that

to Bonnie because I was pretty sure she already knew to do that.

Bonnie is someone on this forum who seems to have a good grasp on

nutrition and simply needed some help with a recent, and unexpected,

issue with her doctor.

Btw, niacin doesn't lower BP unnaturally. As you can see my total

cholesterol is still on the high side. It simply helps to lower LDL

and triglicerides. I seriously doubt that anyone has died from LDL

and triglicerides being too low. Another great effect of niacin is

that " it opens up the small blood vessels and capillaries so that

more blood flows through them. "

http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/niacin.php

Best,

Dee

On Aug 20, 2010, at 10:00 PM, huuman60%40comcast.net wrote:

> OK, your cholesterol numbers are abnormally low and you take

> supplements to lower them more. Beyond that you are recommending

> that others join you in this folly. At age 73, the statistical

> prediction is that you are working to decrease your lifespan.

>

> Aside from your recommendations, the fact is that there is good

> reason to believe that taking isolated B vitamins can cause an

> unhealthy imbalance in the others. No doubt, natural food sources

> are far superior to isolated supplements in all cases. If you are

> serious about heart heath, you might consider nattosomes or K2 if

> you are attracted to isolates.

>

> Also, since cholesterol is the universal band-aid, there is good

> reason to believe that low numbers create an environment for cancer

> and diabetes. Beyond that, lowering your cholesterol levels

> undoubtedly creates stress in your system since it must work

> overtime to make up for the lowered output.

>

> I predict that statin use will eventually prove conclusively that

> lower than average cholesterol numbers are a sign of unhealthy

> conditions for all ages... just as low red blood cell counts are

> an indication of an unhealthy condition. The main difference is

> that big pharma did not target red blood cells as a problem. They

> have no drug to lower them or they might.

> .

> The Cholesterol Con http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/mercola51.1.html

>

> >Your decision to reduce your carbs is a good one - especially with

> diabetes - but I would also seriously consider taking niacin

> >as .someone else recommended. For this you want regular niacin -

> the kind that causes a flush - not niacinamide (though this is

> >good for other things) but also don't get the time-release

> version. Not only does the time-release not cause the flush but it

> is >lso hard on the liver whereas the regular is not. The advice is

> to start out with lower doses and gradually build up. As an>

> >example I take 500 mg once a day and get a very strong flush. My

> LDL cholesterol is 118 and triglicerides 55 (yes, you read >that

> right). I'm 73. There's lots of good info on niacin here:

>

August 21, 2010

Dee,

I was told that Niacin is a big no-no for diabetics, according to my

doc (back in 2001 when I had a doc). I was told that Niacin

interferes with accurate blood glucometer readings. I use

Niacinamide. Other forms of no-flush niacin are bad for the liver.

Alobar

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Dolores Kaufman <dgk@...> wrote:

> Hi Bonnie,

>

> Because I live in the states I found a website that makes the

> conversion to mg/dl, which is what is used here - so here is how your

> numbers convert in case others want to chime in:

> Total Cholesterol 259 mg/dl

> LDL Cholesterol 164.3

> HDL Cholesterol 64.9

> Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 4.0

> Triglycerides 149.6

>

> Unlike Duncan I think that numbers DO matter, though I agree with him

> and others that total cholesterol is not the important number. The

> cholesterol/HDL ratio, as well as the LDL and triglycerides are much

> more indicative of potential risks.

>

> Although your ratio is within range and your triglycerides within

> range (though on the high end of normal), your LDL (the bad

> cholesterol) does seem somewhat high. I would certainly not start

> taking statins, however, as I'm sure you would agree.

>

> Your decision to reduce your carbs is a good one - especially with

> diabetes - but I would also seriously consider taking niacin as

> someone else recommended. For this you want regular niacin - the kind

> that causes a flush - not niacinamide (though this is good for other

> things) but also don't get the time-release version. Not only does

> the time-release not cause the flush but it is also hard on the liver

> whereas the regular is not. The advice is to start out with lower

> doses and gradually build up. As an example I take 500 mg once a day

> and get a very strong flush. My LDL cholesterol is 118 and

> triglicerides 55 (yes, you read that right). I'm 73. There's lots of

> good info on niacin here:

> http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/answers24.htm

>

> Best,

> Dee

>

August 21, 2010

Most doctors who have done their homework (non-mainstream) agree that normal

Cholesterol is between 200 and 230. You are normal. It does not make big pharma

any money, but if wellness is the goal, you should be happy with this.

Like Dr. Wallach, I don't think that HDL/ LDL ratios amount to a

" hill-a-beans " as he would say. Those with a total number above about 400,

probably have a serious condition and, in your case, if you would be dead. So

that would no longer be a concern.

As to your assumption, " I seriously doubt that anyone has died from LDL and

triglicerides being too low " , that remains to be seen. However, there are good

reasons to believe that numbers below 160 are extremely dangerous. Obviously, if

high numbers are an indication of longeivity after age 80, those with low

numbers are proving a correlation exists. What that is remains to be seen. In

any case, if I were age 73 (I am much younger at 68), I would not be looking for

anything less than 211 and I would certainly not be encouraging it.

The effects of niacin have been well documented and there are many doctors who

encourage taking it, so you are well represented. However, my concern with

taking any non-whole food vitamin still stands.. Dr. Bruce (I received

his newsletter for sev. yrs.) has good arguments against taking any artificial

vitamin or mineral and I follow his lead on that. So I would never take K-2

(nattosomes are a whole food supplement) and I did not recommend it. I only

mentioned it. Dr. Mercola thinks that its cool, but I disagree.

>What I didn't mention is that my total cholesterol is 211. Is that, in your

opinion, too low? According to the lab it's high. But since >my HDL is 82 my

Cholesterol/HDL ratio is 2.6. Is that ok with you? It's A-OK with me. And thanks

for your suggestions >regarding nattosoms or K2 but it so happens I take both. I

also don't take " isolated " B3. It is balanced by all the B's. I didn't >mention

that to Bonnie because I was pretty sure she already knew to do that. Bonnie is

someone on this forum who seems to >have a good grasp on nutrition and simply

needed some help with a recent, and unexpected, issue with her doctor.

>Btw, niacin doesn't lower BP unnaturally. As you can see my total cholesterol

is still on the high side. It simply helps to lower >LDL and triglicerides. I

seriously doubt that anyone has died from LDL and triglicerides being too low.

Another great effect of >niacin is that " it opens up the small blood vessels and

capillaries so that more blood flows through them. "

> http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/niacin.php

>Best,

>Dee

August 21, 2010

Dear Nameless,

Well, it's encouraging that you admit that my cholesterol is not too

low :-). Yes, it is " normal " and am not the least bit interested in

lowering it. I am, however, finding it hard to reply to the rest of

your rant (below) because it's so confusing. What does " total number

above about 400 " have to do with HDL/LDL ratios? When speaking about

LDL and triglicerides you throw in " numbers below 160 are extremely

dangerous " . Does that number refer to LDL, triglicerides - or total

cholesterol?

I have already stated that I don't consider total cholesterol numbers

to be particularly important - which is why I didn't deal with that

in my response to Bonnie - so please don't continue to accuse me of

" encouraging " anyone to lower their total cholesterol. And as far as

your opinions regarding food vs. supplements please realize that

opinions are not facts and everyone's needs are different -

especially as they age.

Even though I am not a nutritionist I have had a life-long interest

in nutrition, have always tried to consume a healthy diet, kept

abreast of the latest info (including that regarding cholesterol),

and have added supplements as the needs arise because as one ages

absorption can become an issue. Oh, and btw, my CRP level is 0.17. Is

C-Reactive Protein also unimportant? Mercola certainly thinks it is.

Personally I like to pay attention to all my numbers because they can

give me clues as to what may be going on with my body. How the

numbers are interpreted, however, is another story - and sometimes

(as with cholesterol) the subject of debate.

Best,

Dee

You can see what I look like at the age of 73 here:

http://www.dgkaufman.com

On Aug 21, 2010, at 11:18 AM, huuman60%40comcast.net wrote:

> Most doctors who have done their homework (non-mainstream) agree

> that normal Cholesterol is between 200 and 230. You are normal.

> It does not make big pharma any money, but if wellness is the

> goal, you should be happy with this.

>

> Like Dr. Wallach, I don't think that HDL/ LDL ratios amount to

> a " hill-a-beans " as he would say. Those with a total number above

> about 400, probably have a serious condition and, in your case, if

> you would be dead. So that would no longer be a concern.

>

> As to your assumption, " I seriously doubt that anyone has died

> from LDL and triglicerides being too low " , that remains to be

> seen. However, there are good reasons to believe that numbers

> below 160 are extremely dangerous. Obviously, if high numbers are

> an indication of longeivity after age 80, those with low numbers

> are proving a correlation exists. What that is remains to be

> seen. In any case, if I were age 73 (I am much younger at 68), I

> would not be looking for anything less than 211 and I would

> certainly not be encouraging it.

>

> The effects of niacin have been well documented and there are many

> doctors who encourage taking it, so you are well represented.

> However, my concern with taking any non-whole food vitamin still

> stands.. Dr. Bruce (I received his newsletter for sev.

> yrs.) has good arguments against taking any artificial vitamin or

> mineral and I follow his lead on that. So I would never take K-2

> (nattosomes are a whole food supplement) and I did not recommend

> it. I only mentioned it. Dr. Mercola thinks that its cool, but I

> disagree.

>

> >What I didn't mention is that my total cholesterol is 211. Is

> that, in your opinion, too low? According to the lab it's high. But

> since >my HDL is 82 my Cholesterol/HDL ratio is 2.6. Is that ok

> with you? It's A-OK with me. And thanks for your suggestions

> >regarding nattosoms or K2 but it so happens I take both. I also

> don't take " isolated " B3. It is balanced by all the B's. I didn't

> >mention that to Bonnie because I was pretty sure she already knew

> to do that. Bonnie is someone on this forum who seems to >have a

> good grasp on nutrition and simply needed some help with a recent,

> and unexpected, issue with her doctor.

>

> >Btw, niacin doesn't lower BP unnaturally. As you can see my total

> cholesterol is still on the high side. It simply helps to lower

> >LDL and triglicerides. I seriously doubt that anyone has died from

> LDL and triglicerides being too low. Another great effect of

> >niacin is that " it opens up the small blood vessels and

> capillaries so that more blood flows through them. "

> >http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/articles/niacin.php

> >Best,

> >Dee

August 21, 2010

If this post was intended for me WHO POSTED my Cholesterol #'s in Canada. My

Cholesterol is NOT LOW and I am not recommending this for ANYONE.

Bonnie

_____

From: Coconut Oil

[mailto:Coconut Oil ] On Behalf Of

huuman60%40comcast.net

Sent: August 20, 2010 10:01 PM

Coconut Oil

Cc: dgk@...

Subject: Re: Cholesterol numbers in Canada

OK, your cholesterol numbers are abnormally low and you take supplements to

lower them more. Beyond that you are recommending that others join you in

this folly. At age 73, the statistical prediction is that you are working to

decrease your lifespan.

Aside from your recommendations, the fact is that there is good reason to

believe that taking isolated B vitamins can cause an unhealthy imbalance in

the others. No doubt, natural food sources are far superior to isolated

supplements in all cases. If you are serious about heart heath, you might

consider nattosomes or K2 if you are attracted to isolates.

Also, since cholesterol is the universal band-aid, there is good reason to

believe that low numbers create an environment for cancer and diabetes.

Beyond that, lowering your cholesterol levels undoubtedly creates stress in

your system since it must work overtime to make up for the lowered output.

I predict that statin use will eventually prove conclusively that lower than

average cholesterol numbers are a sign of unhealthy conditions for all

ages... just as low red blood cell counts are an indication of an unhealthy

condition. The main difference is that big pharma did not target red blood

cells as a problem. They have no drug to lower them or they might.

..

The Cholesterol Con http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/mercola51.1.html

>Your decision to reduce your carbs is a good one - especially with diabetes

- but I would also seriously consider taking niacin >as . someone else

recommended. For this you want regular niacin - the kind that causes a flush

- not niacinamide (though this is >good for other things) but also don't get

the time-release version. Not only does the time-release not cause the flush

but it is >lso hard on the liver whereas the regular is not. The advice is

to start out with lower doses and gradually build up. As an> >example I take

500 mg once a day and get a very strong flush. My LDL cholesterol is 118 and

triglicerides 55 (yes, you read >that right). I'm 73. There's lots of good

info on niacin here:

August 21, 2010

Hi Bonnie,

That rant of " human's " was directed at me, not you. If you scroll back to

message #30603

and follow that you'll get a better idea of what this is about. Sorry for the

confusion. I was trying to be of some help as you seemed frustrated by everyone

brushing off your concern. And those were my numbers not yours that he's

referring to. Sorry for the confusion!

All the Best,

Dee

>

> If this post was intended for me WHO POSTED my Cholesterol #'s in Canada. My

> Cholesterol is NOT LOW and I am not recommending this for ANYONE.

>

> Bonnie

>

> _____

>

> From: Coconut Oil

> [mailto:Coconut Oil ] On Behalf Of

> huuman60%40comcast.net

> Sent: August 20, 2010 10:01 PM

> Coconut Oil

> Cc: dgk@...

> Subject: Re: Cholesterol numbers in Canada

>

> OK, your cholesterol numbers are abnormally low and you take supplements to

> lower them more. Beyond that you are recommending that others join you in

> this folly. At age 73, the statistical prediction is that you are working to

> decrease your lifespan.

>

> Aside from your recommendations, the fact is that there is good reason to

> believe that taking isolated B vitamins can cause an unhealthy imbalance in

> the others. No doubt, natural food sources are far superior to isolated

> supplements in all cases. If you are serious about heart heath, you might

> consider nattosomes or K2 if you are attracted to isolates.

>

> Also, since cholesterol is the universal band-aid, there is good reason to

> believe that low numbers create an environment for cancer and diabetes.

> Beyond that, lowering your cholesterol levels undoubtedly creates stress in

> your system since it must work overtime to make up for the lowered output.

>

> I predict that statin use will eventually prove conclusively that lower than

> average cholesterol numbers are a sign of unhealthy conditions for all

> ages... just as low red blood cell counts are an indication of an unhealthy

> condition. The main difference is that big pharma did not target red blood

> cells as a problem. They have no drug to lower them or they might.

> .

> The Cholesterol Con http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/mercola51.1.html

>

> >Your decision to reduce your carbs is a good one - especially with diabetes

> - but I would also seriously consider taking niacin >as . someone else

> recommended. For this you want regular niacin - the kind that causes a flush

> - not niacinamide (though this is >good for other things) but also don't get

> the time-release version. Not only does the time-release not cause the flush

> but it is >lso hard on the liver whereas the regular is not. The advice is

> to start out with lower doses and gradually build up. As an> >example I take

> 500 mg once a day and get a very strong flush. My LDL cholesterol is 118 and

> triglicerides 55 (yes, you read >that right). I'm 73. There's lots of good

> info on niacin here:

>

August 21, 2010

Alobar,

Did you miss the part where I said that no-flush niacin is bad for the liver? As

for diabetics, there is no universal consensus on that one. Is it possible that

your doctor has been brainwashed regarding niacin for diabetics just as so many

docs are brainwashed regarding cholesterol? Just saying. At any rate, here is

another take on the issue:

http://answers./question/index?qid=20080630073740AA1SRSi

But Bonnie can weigh both sides and make her own decision.

Dee

> > Hi Bonnie,

> >

> > Because I live in the states I found a website that makes the

> > conversion to mg/dl, which is what is used here - so here is how your

> > numbers convert in case others want to chime in:

> > Total Cholesterol 259 mg/dl

> > LDL Cholesterol 164.3

> > HDL Cholesterol 64.9

> > Cholesterol/HDL Ratio 4.0

> > Triglycerides 149.6

> >

> > Unlike Duncan I think that numbers DO matter, though I agree with him

> > and others that total cholesterol is not the important number. The

> > cholesterol/HDL ratio, as well as the LDL and triglycerides are much

> > more indicative of potential risks.

> >

> > Although your ratio is within range and your triglycerides within

> > range (though on the high end of normal), your LDL (the bad

> > cholesterol) does seem somewhat high. I would certainly not start

> > taking statins, however, as I'm sure you would agree.

> >

> > Your decision to reduce your carbs is a good one - especially with

> > diabetes - but I would also seriously consider taking niacin as

> > someone else recommended. For this you want regular niacin - the kind

> > that causes a flush - not niacinamide (though this is good for other

> > things) but also don't get the time-release version. Not only does

> > the time-release not cause the flush but it is also hard on the liver

> > whereas the regular is not. The advice is to start out with lower

> > doses and gradually build up. As an example I take 500 mg once a day

> > and get a very strong flush. My LDL cholesterol is 118 and

> > triglicerides 55 (yes, you read that right). I'm 73. There's lots of

> > good info on niacin here:

> > http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/answers24.htm

> >

> > Best,

> > Dee

> >

>

August 21, 2010