Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Part of an article in the May 2005 issue of Life Extension magazine says: " It is our position that the ideal cholesterol blood level is 180-200 mg/dL and that levels below 160 mg/dL are particularly dangerous. Cholesterol is required for the natural synthesis of hormones, for blood vessel wall maintenance, and for maintaining proper cell membrane structure and function. Driving cholesterol to abnormally low levels can wreak havoc throughout the body. The dose of satin drugs prescribed by most doctors often results in cholesterol reading far below 160 mg/dL. The obvious solution to this problem is to take a lower dose of the satin drug. We have found that cutting the dose of a satin drug in half and even by three-quarters maintains LDL under 100 mg/dL and total cholesterol under 200 mg/dL. How dangerous is too-low cholesterol? A huge study followed 350,977 middle-aged men for an average of 12 years. Those whose total cholesterol levels were under 160 mg/dL doubled their risk of brain hemorrhage and significantly increased their risk of death from cancers of the liver and pancreas, digestive diseases (particularly hepatic cirrhosis), suicide, and alcohol dependence syndrome. In addition, men with total cholesterol under 160 mg/dL had increased risks of cancers of the lung, lymphatic, and blood (leukemia) systems, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Since cholesterol is the precursor to " feel good " hormones like testosterone and estrogen, some scientists believe that reducing cholesterol to too low a level can have a significantly negative impact on one's mental health. Doctors are prescribing higher-dose statin drugs for the purpose of preventing heart attacks without considering that these same drugs may be lowering their patients' cholesterol levels too much. " For what it's worth. Standard CYA statements. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Thanks for the information, Amber. My husband has been on Zocor 40 mg since he had a heart attack in Oct of 2000. He just had his cholesterol checked and it was under 160. It usually is. We will talk to his dr. about this article. Mine was 170 something and I don't take anything, BUT my triglyceride level is 389! I'm working really hard at getting that number down. Dr. Atkins said in his books that high triglycerides are much more dangerous than high cholesterol. Thanks again! Donna N. > Part of an article in the May 2005 issue of Life Extension magazine says: > > " It is our position that the ideal cholesterol blood level is 180-200 > mg/dL and that levels below 160 mg/dL are particularly dangerous. > Cholesterol is required for the natural synthesis of hormones, for blood > vessel wall maintenance, and for maintaining proper cell membrane > structure and function. > > > Amber > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 My finger slipped so I don't know if a half replied post is on its way. Donna, I just received my latest blood tests results. My total cholestrol was 5.4, down from 5.6 from last time. My HDL was 1.22 up from 1.19 and my LDL was 2.77 down from 3.55! *happy dance over that* However my triglyceride was up to 3.1 from 1.9. My practice nurse is pleased about it all and said not to worry about the tri number. I've been taking flax seed oil capsules twice a day and I put the good numbers to that. I will fight to my last breath not to take statins. My GP agrees with me. I'm going to have to find a chart to translate the English numbers to the Americans. > My husband has been on Zocor 40 mg since he had a heart attack in Oct > of 2000. He just had his cholesterol checked and it was under 160. It > usually is. We will talk to his dr. about this article. Mine was 170 > something and I don't take anything, BUT my triglyceride level is 389! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 My finger slipped so I don't know if a half replied post is on its way. Donna, I just received my latest blood tests results. My total cholestrol was 5.4, down from 5.6 from last time. My HDL was 1.22 up from 1.19 and my LDL was 2.77 down from 3.55! *happy dance over that* However my triglyceride was up to 3.1 from 1.9. My practice nurse is pleased about it all and said not to worry about the tri number. I've been taking flax seed oil capsules twice a day and I put the good numbers to that. I will fight to my last breath not to take statins. My GP agrees with me. I'm going to have to find a chart to translate the English numbers to the Americans. > My husband has been on Zocor 40 mg since he had a heart attack in Oct > of 2000. He just had his cholesterol checked and it was under 160. It > usually is. We will talk to his dr. about this article. Mine was 170 > something and I don't take anything, BUT my triglyceride level is 389! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 My finger slipped so I don't know if a half replied post is on its way. Donna, I just received my latest blood tests results. My total cholestrol was 5.4, down from 5.6 from last time. My HDL was 1.22 up from 1.19 and my LDL was 2.77 down from 3.55! *happy dance over that* However my triglyceride was up to 3.1 from 1.9. My practice nurse is pleased about it all and said not to worry about the tri number. I've been taking flax seed oil capsules twice a day and I put the good numbers to that. I will fight to my last breath not to take statins. My GP agrees with me. I'm going to have to find a chart to translate the English numbers to the Americans. > My husband has been on Zocor 40 mg since he had a heart attack in Oct > of 2000. He just had his cholesterol checked and it was under 160. It > usually is. We will talk to his dr. about this article. Mine was 170 > something and I don't take anything, BUT my triglyceride level is 389! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 descartesmum wrote: > I've been taking flax seed oil capsules twice a day > and I put the good numbers to that. I seem to remember reading that it takes 18 capsules to equal a tablespoon of oil. I take one tablespoon of oil a day just mixed with milk and drink it down. > > I will fight to my last breath not to take statins. My GP agrees with me. Sounds like you have a good doctor! > > > My husband has been on Zocor 40 mg since he had a heart attack in Oct > > of 2000. He just had his cholesterol checked and it was under 160. It > > usually is. We will talk to his dr. about this article. Mine was 170 > > something and I don't take anything, BUT my triglyceride level is 389! WAY TOO LOW. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2005 Report Share Posted April 12, 2005 Donna wrote: > > Thanks for the information, Amber. > My husband has been on Zocor 40 mg since he had a heart attack in Oct > of 2000. He just had his cholesterol checked and it was under 160. It > usually is. We will talk to his dr. about this article. Mine was 170 > something and I don't take anything, BUT my triglyceride level is 389! > I'm working really hard at getting that number down. Dr. Atkins said in > his books that high triglycerides are much more dangerous than high > cholesterol. > Oh, I totally agree. I hope your Dr. is open minded and will read the information and either stop or reduce his medicine. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 > (snip) > Triglycerides are looking to be the dirty birds - also > homocysteine and c-reactive protein. Not cholesterol so much. > (snip) > Irene Irene, While there are a lot of new and trendy indicators of heart disease, in peer-reviewed scientific studies the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol continues to be the most accurate predictor. See: http://tinyurl.com/5to6v The conclusions of which are listed below: RESULTS: In univariate analyses, plasma levels of total cholesterol (P<.001), LDL-C (P =.001), triglycerides (P =.001), apo B-100 (P =.001), fibrinogen (P =.02), CRP (P =.006), and the total cholesterol- HDL-C ratio (P<.001) were all significantly higher at baseline among men who subsequently developed PAD compared with those who did not, while levels of HDL-C (P =.009) and apo A-I (P =.05) were lower. Nonsignificant baseline elevations of lipoprotein(a) (P =.40) and homocysteine (P =.90) were observed. In multivariable analyses, the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio was the strongest lipid predictor of risk (relative risk [RR] for those in the highest vs lowest quartile, 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-8.6), while CRP was the strongest nonlipid predictor (RR for the highest vs lowest quartile, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-5.9). In assessing joint effects, addition of CRP to standard lipid screening significantly improved risk prediction models based on lipid screening alone (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Of 11 atherothrombotic biomarkers assessed at baseline, the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio and CRP were the strongest independent predictors of development of peripheral arterial disease. C-reactive protein provided additive prognostic information over standard lipid measures. (end of citation) So, while all of the indicators may be valuable in assessing risk, I would not dismiss cholesterol --- it may be the single best marker. Regards, , Charlotte NC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 > (snip) > Triglycerides are looking to be the dirty birds - also > homocysteine and c-reactive protein. Not cholesterol so much. > (snip) > Irene Irene, While there are a lot of new and trendy indicators of heart disease, in peer-reviewed scientific studies the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol continues to be the most accurate predictor. See: http://tinyurl.com/5to6v The conclusions of which are listed below: RESULTS: In univariate analyses, plasma levels of total cholesterol (P<.001), LDL-C (P =.001), triglycerides (P =.001), apo B-100 (P =.001), fibrinogen (P =.02), CRP (P =.006), and the total cholesterol- HDL-C ratio (P<.001) were all significantly higher at baseline among men who subsequently developed PAD compared with those who did not, while levels of HDL-C (P =.009) and apo A-I (P =.05) were lower. Nonsignificant baseline elevations of lipoprotein(a) (P =.40) and homocysteine (P =.90) were observed. In multivariable analyses, the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio was the strongest lipid predictor of risk (relative risk [RR] for those in the highest vs lowest quartile, 3.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-8.6), while CRP was the strongest nonlipid predictor (RR for the highest vs lowest quartile, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.3-5.9). In assessing joint effects, addition of CRP to standard lipid screening significantly improved risk prediction models based on lipid screening alone (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Of 11 atherothrombotic biomarkers assessed at baseline, the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio and CRP were the strongest independent predictors of development of peripheral arterial disease. C-reactive protein provided additive prognostic information over standard lipid measures. (end of citation) So, while all of the indicators may be valuable in assessing risk, I would not dismiss cholesterol --- it may be the single best marker. Regards, , Charlotte NC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 sinusrhythm58 wrote: > > > > (snip) > > Triglycerides are looking to be the dirty birds - also > > homocysteine and c-reactive protein. Not cholesterol so much. > > (snip) > > Irene > > So, while all of the indicators may be valuable in assessing risk, I > would not dismiss cholesterol --- it may be the single best marker. > Regards, > , Charlotte NC > > What I've been reading lately seems to be saying that newer thinking is that Homocysteine and C-Reactive Protein tests are more reliable for markers for heart problems than cholesterol. I agree that all tests could be useful, but I think the cholesterol test is the least useful. I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get more people on drugs - to make more money. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 sinusrhythm58 wrote: > > > > (snip) > > Triglycerides are looking to be the dirty birds - also > > homocysteine and c-reactive protein. Not cholesterol so much. > > (snip) > > Irene > > So, while all of the indicators may be valuable in assessing risk, I > would not dismiss cholesterol --- it may be the single best marker. > Regards, > , Charlotte NC > > What I've been reading lately seems to be saying that newer thinking is that Homocysteine and C-Reactive Protein tests are more reliable for markers for heart problems than cholesterol. I agree that all tests could be useful, but I think the cholesterol test is the least useful. I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get more people on drugs - to make more money. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2005 Report Share Posted April 13, 2005 sinusrhythm58 wrote: > > > > (snip) > > Triglycerides are looking to be the dirty birds - also > > homocysteine and c-reactive protein. Not cholesterol so much. > > (snip) > > Irene > > So, while all of the indicators may be valuable in assessing risk, I > would not dismiss cholesterol --- it may be the single best marker. > Regards, > , Charlotte NC > > What I've been reading lately seems to be saying that newer thinking is that Homocysteine and C-Reactive Protein tests are more reliable for markers for heart problems than cholesterol. I agree that all tests could be useful, but I think the cholesterol test is the least useful. I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get more people on drugs - to make more money. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Kristy Sokoloski wrote: > Amber said: > > " I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get > more people on drugs - to make more money. " > > I couldn't agree more. It seems the same thing also applies to > the way they keep lowering blood sugar readings and also bp > readings for what they consider normal. > > My feeling is that if this is the case and it continues they are > going to have more people dying of numbers that are too low than > those that are too high. > > Daughter of Type 2 Insulin Dependent Diabetic, > > Kristy > Oh yes, I noticed that about BP numbers, too. I can't agree with you more. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Kristy Sokoloski wrote: > Amber said: > > " I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get > more people on drugs - to make more money. " > > I couldn't agree more. It seems the same thing also applies to > the way they keep lowering blood sugar readings and also bp > readings for what they consider normal. > > My feeling is that if this is the case and it continues they are > going to have more people dying of numbers that are too low than > those that are too high. > > Daughter of Type 2 Insulin Dependent Diabetic, > > Kristy > Oh yes, I noticed that about BP numbers, too. I can't agree with you more. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Kristy Sokoloski wrote: > Amber said: > > " I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get > more people on drugs - to make more money. " > > I couldn't agree more. It seems the same thing also applies to > the way they keep lowering blood sugar readings and also bp > readings for what they consider normal. > > My feeling is that if this is the case and it continues they are > going to have more people dying of numbers that are too low than > those that are too high. > > Daughter of Type 2 Insulin Dependent Diabetic, > > Kristy > Oh yes, I noticed that about BP numbers, too. I can't agree with you more. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 sinusrhythm58 wrote: > > > >>(snip) >>Triglycerides are looking to be the dirty birds - also >>homocysteine and c-reactive protein. Not cholesterol so much. >>(snip) >> Irene > > > Irene, > While there are a lot of new and trendy indicators of heart disease, It seems you are suggesting I used " new and trendy indicators " and not solid research in making the above statement? If so, it's not so :-)) ...Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 : There isn't still one predictor of heart disease. There are two of them. One is high LDL. The other is high triglycerides (carried on VLDL) and normal to low HDL. One is caused by genetic mutations in the proteins in lipoproteins and their receptors, and the other is caused by insulin resistance. I get the idea that the two factors may cause about equal amounts of heart disease. And insulin resistance causes heart disease more often than diabetes. You need more genetic things wrong or else serious overweight for diabetes. I think that five years ago when I last had a good one, my doctor was just beginning to catch onto the HDL part - and he never checked my triglycerides! Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... ----- Original Message ----- > > Irene, > While there are a lot of new and trendy indicators of heart disease, > in peer-reviewed scientific studies the ratio of total cholesterol to > HDL cholesterol continues to be the most accurate predictor. > See: http://tinyurl.com/5to6v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 : There isn't still one predictor of heart disease. There are two of them. One is high LDL. The other is high triglycerides (carried on VLDL) and normal to low HDL. One is caused by genetic mutations in the proteins in lipoproteins and their receptors, and the other is caused by insulin resistance. I get the idea that the two factors may cause about equal amounts of heart disease. And insulin resistance causes heart disease more often than diabetes. You need more genetic things wrong or else serious overweight for diabetes. I think that five years ago when I last had a good one, my doctor was just beginning to catch onto the HDL part - and he never checked my triglycerides! Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... ----- Original Message ----- > > Irene, > While there are a lot of new and trendy indicators of heart disease, > in peer-reviewed scientific studies the ratio of total cholesterol to > HDL cholesterol continues to be the most accurate predictor. > See: http://tinyurl.com/5to6v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 : There isn't still one predictor of heart disease. There are two of them. One is high LDL. The other is high triglycerides (carried on VLDL) and normal to low HDL. One is caused by genetic mutations in the proteins in lipoproteins and their receptors, and the other is caused by insulin resistance. I get the idea that the two factors may cause about equal amounts of heart disease. And insulin resistance causes heart disease more often than diabetes. You need more genetic things wrong or else serious overweight for diabetes. I think that five years ago when I last had a good one, my doctor was just beginning to catch onto the HDL part - and he never checked my triglycerides! Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... ----- Original Message ----- > > Irene, > While there are a lot of new and trendy indicators of heart disease, > in peer-reviewed scientific studies the ratio of total cholesterol to > HDL cholesterol continues to be the most accurate predictor. > See: http://tinyurl.com/5to6v Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 J'ai un question. If your triglycerides, blood sugar, insulin and LDL are all under control and your homocysteine and c-reactive protein were high, what would you do about it? Yours, Dora Uninsured in Austin, Texas villandra@... > What I've been reading lately seems to be saying that newer thinking is > that Homocysteine and C-Reactive Protein tests are more reliable for > markers for heart problems than cholesterol. I agree that all tests > could be useful, but I think the cholesterol test is the least useful. > I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get more people > on drugs - to make more money. > > Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 J'ai un question. If your triglycerides, blood sugar, insulin and LDL are all under control and your homocysteine and c-reactive protein were high, what would you do about it? Yours, Dora Uninsured in Austin, Texas villandra@... > What I've been reading lately seems to be saying that newer thinking is > that Homocysteine and C-Reactive Protein tests are more reliable for > markers for heart problems than cholesterol. I agree that all tests > could be useful, but I think the cholesterol test is the least useful. > I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get more people > on drugs - to make more money. > > Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 J'ai un question. If your triglycerides, blood sugar, insulin and LDL are all under control and your homocysteine and c-reactive protein were high, what would you do about it? Yours, Dora Uninsured in Austin, Texas villandra@... > What I've been reading lately seems to be saying that newer thinking is > that Homocysteine and C-Reactive Protein tests are more reliable for > markers for heart problems than cholesterol. I agree that all tests > could be useful, but I think the cholesterol test is the least useful. > I also think drug companies are lowering requirements to get more people > on drugs - to make more money. > > Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Kristie: Your common sense has you deceived. You fail to suspect the truth. The reason why the blood sugar numbers keep lowering is that doctors are gradually changing their attitude toward one of actually diagnosing and treating disease. Formerly - as recently as the 1980's, it was a very bad thing to diagnose diabetes. The few older medical texts I could find looked for eight million ways from Tuesday to find ways people do NOT really have diabetes! Diagnosing people as sick if tehy might not be is terrible manners! Also reasons to deny employment, insurance, and even drivers' licenses. I kid you not. Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? > .. It seems the same thing also applies to > the way they keep lowering blood sugar readings and also bp > readings for what they consider normal. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Kristie: Your common sense has you deceived. You fail to suspect the truth. The reason why the blood sugar numbers keep lowering is that doctors are gradually changing their attitude toward one of actually diagnosing and treating disease. Formerly - as recently as the 1980's, it was a very bad thing to diagnose diabetes. The few older medical texts I could find looked for eight million ways from Tuesday to find ways people do NOT really have diabetes! Diagnosing people as sick if tehy might not be is terrible manners! Also reasons to deny employment, insurance, and even drivers' licenses. I kid you not. Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? > .. It seems the same thing also applies to > the way they keep lowering blood sugar readings and also bp > readings for what they consider normal. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Kristie: Your common sense has you deceived. You fail to suspect the truth. The reason why the blood sugar numbers keep lowering is that doctors are gradually changing their attitude toward one of actually diagnosing and treating disease. Formerly - as recently as the 1980's, it was a very bad thing to diagnose diabetes. The few older medical texts I could find looked for eight million ways from Tuesday to find ways people do NOT really have diabetes! Diagnosing people as sick if tehy might not be is terrible manners! Also reasons to deny employment, insurance, and even drivers' licenses. I kid you not. Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? > .. It seems the same thing also applies to > the way they keep lowering blood sugar readings and also bp > readings for what they consider normal. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.