Re: My new numbers (sorry, long answer)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 00-11-26 11:42:53 EST, you write:

<< The doc continues to just look at the total cholesterol

and LDL and seems to disregard the good numbers or ratios.

>>

What's wrong with your doc? My doc says it's not necessarily the high

numbers, it's the relationshp between them that's important. Susie, can you

refer her to some written stuff that she can show her doctor? Vicki

[Guest guest]

Susie--

> The two problems are (a) your high LDL, and ( you are still

> taking a dangerous medication (Glipizide). And with an HbA1c of 5.3 and a

> ketogenic-level diet, I cannot imagine why. Why someone would continue to

> take a drug that kills pancreases, and causes heart attacks as well as

fatal

> hypos is beyond me.

At this point, I have no choice. I'm on county health services, have only

been taking the Glip for 6 months, and hope to lose enough weight that my

glucose numbers go lower and I can quit the stuff.. BTW, my HbA1c is 6.0,

not 5.3. I wish! I'd rather raise my Glucophage dose, but the doc won't let

me and I'm stuck with him until I can get a full time job with health

insurance. And as you know, that's pretty difficult with diabetes.

>

> << I don't use butter but once a week, in fact I'm on a lower fat diet,

> using only olive oil when I use fat. >>

>

> Yes - monounsaturated oils are the way to go. But don't fear butter

> unnecessarily. The trans fats in margarine are at least as dangerous.

Margarine! Blech! I don't go near the stuff! The hydrogenated fat in it will

kill you, ya know? :-) I thought I had read once that if you're having

problems lowering the LDL that going lower fat would help. I've already been

higher fat and my tris were higher and HDL was lower. That drat LDL is what

I'm working on now. The doc continues to just look at the total cholesterol

and LDL and seems to disregard the good numbers or ratios.

> << My meat is low fat, I eat about 1 oz. of cheese a day, if that. I

> This all sounds excellent! But you don't need to fear caffeine.

Boy, and I love my full pot of coffee every morning! It used to be all high

test, but the doc said to quit coffee due to its vaso-constrictor

properties. I have claudication in my legs which makes it more difficult to

walk, though I do anyway, and that's improved 300% since getting my glucose

down. I couldn't completely give up caffeine and now have 2/3 decaf per pot.

>And you are to be hugged and - yes - worshipped < giggle > for losing 92

pounds! You are taking appropriate

> supplements?

::Blush:: I didn't do a thing to lose 72 of those pounds except walk around

a couple of years undiagnosed, without a scale, and not knowing how much

weight I had lost! Only 20 of them are due to hard work, very low carb diet

and some exercise. I take non-iron multivitamins, C, E,

calcium/magnesium/zinc, niacin, coQ10, alpha lipoic acid.. In addition to

the diabetes meds (3x500 met, 1.5x10 glip) estrogen, progesterone, and 1x20

mg Lipitor. I also have neuropathy, but hope that improves on this WOE after

awhile.

With county health services, you don't have a choice of docs. I've had 4 so

far, in a revolving door situation, and it's hard to keep continuity.

They're all GPs, with no endos in sight. :::sigh::: ... one of these

days....

And yet, I feel extremely lucky, since I was so very sick in back in

January. All the symptoms I thought were old age have disappeared, I've lost

weight, improved my lipids, no longer incontinent, don't nap every

afternoon, and feel better than I have in years. Just making Thanksgiving

dinner this year didn't put me to like it did last year! And I have to thank

the very low carb diet for most of it.

Thanks for reading thru all of this. I thank this list for all the wise

advice and support here!

[Guest guest]

So... now I'm in danger since I got my tris down to 119? Geesh, will this

merry-go-round ever end?

Re: My new numbers (sorry, long answer)

> In a message dated 11/26/2000 4:00:40 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> ottercritter@... writes:

>

> << We used to think the ratio of HDL to total cholesterol was important,

but a

> study 3-5 years ago (and it was a good one) said that more important is

the

> ratio of HDL to triglycerides. Optimal triglycerides to enhance longevity

> appear to be 170-220 in a U.S. study, >>

>

> where's this study on the internet? the study I was quoted by my endo is

150

> or below is dangerous, and under 200.

> carol

>

>

> Public website for Diabetes International:

> http://www.msteri.com/diabetes-info/diabetes_int

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Pinkston asks:

<< So... now I'm in danger since I got my tris down to 119? Geesh, will this

merry-go-round ever end? >>

Only from yourself. Isn't that wacky? The increased death rate is due to

accidents and suicides. I can't explain it! We need to look at increased

risk from the lipids meds themselves and see the big picture here. Our

greatest health threat as diabetics is diabetes. If we manage that well, the

other numbers have a way of falling into line. Elevated triglycerides should

not, I believe, be thought of as a separate health problem but an indication

that we probably have not yet achieved optimal diabetes control.

The big unknown, to me anyway, is what is optimal. I guess my b.s. alarm is

very sensitive, but I am suspicious of the approach that says we should all

load up on expensive and possibly dangerous meds to try to pull our

triglycerides beneath 100.

Susie

[Guest guest]

Judith wrote:

<< the folks doing the study believed the optimal range for triglycerides

should be <150. Mine were 162

on diagnosis 7/00, so I went in for the labdraw for the study - and they are

now 89. So no study for me. They also did an HBA1C, which was 6.something

.... from 10.something on diagnosis 7/00. Eh ... I'm not complaining. >>

Good for you, Judith!

Susie )