RE: interpret cholesterol readings?

[Guest guest]

I also recently had my cholesterol tested and got a simular reading.

I shared it here and got lots of reasurance. I found this link to be

very helpful.

http://www.westonaprice.org/askdoctor/ask_cholesterol.html

I am no longer worried.

Hope this helps,

Del

--- In , " glarnermom " <itchyink@s...>

wrote:

> I have been reading through the archives on 'high' cholesterol

> but still find myself needing some reassurance. My husband and

> I have been eating raw dairy, farm fresh eggs and much more

> grass-fed meats in the last year or so since i discovered NT. I

> have also added coconut oil to my diet.

>

> We just got our blood test results and our cholesterol has shot

> way up. My total ch. is 239 -- 68 HDL and 151 LDL. Triglycerides

> are 98. My husband's are similar. Previously my total cholesterol

> was 170.

>

> I was blood tested (for insurance) two months after having my

> baby and found i gained quite a bit more weight during my

> second pregnancy on a loose NT diet and it is much slower on

> coming off -- i have about 40 pounds to lose. On the other hand, i

> had a pretty comfortable pregnancy compared to the first.

>

> I confess i eat too much sugar but am slowly feeling my cravings

> abate, thanks to VCO. I know this topic comes up frequently on

> this list but i am grateful in advance for more discussion.

[Guest guest]

>>>>>I have been reading through the archives on 'high' cholesterol

but still find myself needing some reassurance. My husband and

I have been eating raw dairy, farm fresh eggs and much more

grass-fed meats in the last year or so since i discovered NT. I

have also added coconut oil to my diet.

We just got our blood test results and our cholesterol has shot

way up. My total ch. is 239 -- 68 HDL and 151 LDL. Triglycerides

are 98. My husband's are similar. Previously my total cholesterol

was 170.

----->the best advice i could give is " stop checking " ! cholesterol numbers

are virtually meaningless in regards to cardiac risk. in fact, older women

who have so called " high " cholesterol levels, have a *lower* all cause death

rate. cholesterol may also be protective of infectious disease. if you

really want a thorough understanding of how bogus the lipid hypothesis is

(the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease) get " the

cholesterol myths " by Uffe Ravnskov. for a summary of the issue, here's a

page explaining the 8 myths: http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

for more info on this issue, go to the last URL in my sig line.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>We just got our blood test results and our cholesterol has shot

>way up. My total ch. is 239 -- 68 HDL and 151 LDL. Triglycerides

>are 98. My husband's are similar. Previously my total cholesterol

>was 170.

>

>----->the best advice i could give is " stop checking " ! cholesterol numbers

>are virtually meaningless in regards to cardiac risk. in fact, older women

>who have so called " high " cholesterol levels, have a *lower* all cause death

>rate. cholesterol may also be protective of infectious disease. if you

>really want a thorough understanding of how bogus the lipid hypothesis is

>(the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease) get " the

>cholesterol myths " by Uffe Ravnskov. for a summary of the issue, here's a

>page explaining the 8 myths:

<http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm>http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

>

>for more info on this issue, go to the last URL in my sig line.

This is actually reaching the mainstream too. I recently read an article

that basically said low " good " cholesterol is predictive of death but

the " bad " cholesterol didn't predect much:

Health - Reuters

Low 'Good' Cholesterol Predicts Death

in Elderly

Levels of LDL, the " bad " type of cholesterol, did not influence the

risk of death from cardiovascular disease, the authors found. In

contrast, low levels HDL, the " good " cholesterol increased the risk.

Subjects with HDL cholesterol levels below 40 mg/dL were twice as

likely to die from stroke or heart disease than were subjects with

levels above 46 mg/dL.

....

Low levels of HDL as well as LDL cholesterol more than doubled

the risk of death from infection, the investigators state. High total

cholesterol levels were associated with a significantly reduced risk

of death from infection.

Unfortunately the address got cut off when I

saved the article, but here is part of it:

http://story.news./news?tmpl=story & cid=594 & ncid=594 & e=1 & u=/nm/200.../ch\

olestrol_stroke_d

I gave that article to my DH when his doc tried to put him on a " low fat " diet.

His cholesterol isn't

even really high by the normal standards! But his HDL was high, which I told him

was GOOD!

I can send the article privately, if you like ... anyway, a mainstream article

like that usually

helps folks.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

Do you remember where? (Always looking for solid ammunition...)

>I recently read an article

>that basically said low " good " cholesterol is predictive of death but

>the " bad " cholesterol didn't predect much:

-

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>Do you remember where? (Always looking for solid ammunition...)

>

>>I recently read an article

>>that basically said low " good " cholesterol is predictive of death but

>>the " bad " cholesterol didn't predect much:

>

>

>-

I don't know where the original one is (not online anymore, I think) but

you can find references to the study by searching on Weverling-Rijnsburger.

Or get a reprint from Science News for a friendlier version:

http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc97/10_25_97/ref1.htm

Here is the actual study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve & db=pubmed & list_uids=1\

2860577 & dopt=Abstract

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Hey, and maybe lowering your cholesterol could give you cancer ...

Various reports have recently emerged showing that low cholesterol levels are

associated with higher death rates (particularly among elderly people), due to

mortality from cancer and infection (Weverling-Rijnsburger et al. 1997; Schatz

et al. 2001). These findings raise concerns regarding hypocholesterolemic drug

therapy and diet manipulation to drastically lower cholesterol levels in a

subset of the population.

http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-027l.shtml