High cholesterol problem

[Buckeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moscyn Getting my cholesterol level down appears more and more challenging. Of all the things I read in this thread which I find the hardest to do is to consume less carbohydrate and no alcohol. I think I'll just do my best and everything in moderation. But I know one thing I can't do is avoid alcohol - I'm not an alcoholic but I do enjoy a glass of good wine with my dinner. You see, I don't just drink wine, I appreciate wine a lot - I like to evaluate the taste and changes as I drink it with different food. I'll just have to drink less. What is easy for me to do in the entire list of my To Do list is the increase of exercise and more cardiovascular activities. In fact, I enjoy that very much.

You can be sure reducing carbs is very good for you because it's sooooooo hard to do! We are never addicted to stuff that is good for us...a broccoli addict? Never seen one!

[Moscyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye You can be sure reducing carbs is very good for you because it's sooooooo hard to do! We are never addicted to stuff that is good for us...a broccoli addict? Never seen one!

At leastI am addicted to exercise! One up for me there. As regards reducing carbs, well just had grilled salmon and vegetable soup (with a few bits of potatoes) for lunch. Low carbs is pretty difficult but I'm getting there and everything in moderation.

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsmeow Of course, in my own case I had the experience of testing my cholesterol numbers shortly before starting low carb eating and then after 6 months of low carb eating. For me, my total cholesterol and LDL went up (especially LDL), HDL is basically unchanged and triglycerides went down. I felt those results were mixed. That said, my fasting glucose went down markedly which I felt was very positive.

Here's something that is very interesting.

In almost most cases, LDL is calculated rather than directly measured.

Here is the standard formula used (TC = Total Cholesterol, TG = Triglycerides):

Friedewald Formula:

LDL = TC – HDL – (TG / 5)

However, in this study:

The Impact of Low Serum Triglyceride on LDL-Cholesterol Estimation

The authors compared the calculated value with directly measured values, and found that the calculation was inaccurate if the TG was under 100. In that situation, this formula is more accurate:

LDL = TC/1.19 + TG/1.9 – HDL/1.1 – 38

So if your TG is under 100 (mine is 49), you can recalculate your LDL. It will be lower.

Best is to have your LDL measured directly, which I plan to do next time.

[braumeister]

Sweet!
That equation puts my LDL at 130, right where my doc wants me. The Friedewald equation has it way over that. My low carb lifestyle brought my trigs way down and HDL way up, so despite the high total, I'm pleased.

Wait! What? Tehran University? Surely this is another of Ahmadinejad's tricks, right?

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister Wait! What? Tehran University? Surely this is another of Ahmadinejad's tricks, right?

USA: The Great Statin Satan...

[Ronstar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Here's something that is very interesting. In almost most cases, LDL is calculated rather than directly measured. Here is the standard formula used (TC = Total Cholesterol, TG = Triglycerides): Friedewald Formula: LDL = TC – HDL – (TG / 5) However, in this study: The Impact of Low Serum Triglyceride on LDL-Cholesterol Estimation The authors compared the calculated value with directly measured values, and found that the calculation was inaccurate if the TG was under 100. In that situation, this formula is more accurate: LDL = TC/1.19 + TG/1.9 – HDL/1.1 – 38 So if your TG is under 100 (mine is 49), you can recalculate your LDL. It will be lower. Best is to have your LDL measured directly, which I plan to do next time.

The second equation is very close in my case, which makes sense since my TG is 62 per recent advanced lipids testing.

My measured LDL is 79. Calculated LDL per equation 1 is 102.6. Calculated LDL per equation 2 is 86.3.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye We are never addicted to stuff that is good for us...a broccoli addict? Never seen one!

Do I have to meet you in person, so that you will change your statement?

Anyway, exactly because I am a proud omnivore, I have been highly suspicious of the Atkins diet. What I like, i.e. red meat, is good for me? Can't be!

It's not that I am overweight (BMI of 25), nor have high cholesterol, but my blood pressure can get up to the 140/90, and it used to be 125/80. So, in addition to doing more physical activities, I have tried to limit my food intake to reduce weight in order to reduce BP.

Now, people are telling me that by cutting out carb and just eat lots of meat and veggies, I can have it both ways, meaning losing weight with no health risks, and satisfying my palate and stomach at the same time.

But how about other health risks I heard about, like colon cancer, gout, etc?

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Do I have to meet you in person, so that you will change your statement? Anyway, exactly because I am a proud omnivore, I have been highly suspicious of the Atkins diet. What I like, i.e. red meat, is good for me? Can't be! It's not that I am overweight (BMI of 25), nor have high cholesterol, but my blood pressure can get up to the 140/90, and it used to be 125/80. So, in addition to doing more physical activities, I have tried to limit my food intake to reduce weight in order to reduce BP. Now, people are telling me that by cutting out carb and just eat lots of meat and veggies, I can have it both ways, meaning losing weight with no health risks, and satisfying my palate and stomach at the same time. But how about other health risks I heard about, like colon cancer, gout, etc?

If you eat a lot of veggies like brocolli, you'll get a huge amount of fiber which is supposed to be good for colon health, so don't worry about that one too much.

[Buckeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound Do I have to meet you in person, so that you will change your statement? Anyway, exactly because I am a proud omnivore, I have been highly suspicious of the Atkins diet. What I like, i.e. red meat, is good for me? Can't be! It's not that I am overweight (BMI of 25), nor have high cholesterol, but my blood pressure can get up to the 140/90, and it used to be 125/80. So, in addition to doing more physical activities, I have tried to limit my food intake to reduce weight in order to reduce BP. Now, people are telling me that by cutting out carb and just eat lots of meat and veggies, I can have it both ways, meaning losing weight with no health risks, and satisfying my palate and stomach at the same time. But how about other health risks I heard about, like colon cancer, gout, etc?

I have found the Dukan Diet to be the proper balance between healthy protein and veggies and carbs (not many) for me. I've lost 27.5 pounds, taken 20 points off my blood pressure (was 128/82, now 110/72) and 20 points off my total cholesterol. Getting my protein intake up (I was not getting enough) and my carbohydrate intake down (which still includes lots of non-starchy veggies but almost no grains) has made me feel much better.

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl So if your TG is under 100 (mine is 49), you can recalculate your LDL. It will be lower. Best is to have your LDL measured directly, which I plan to do next time.

This was interesting. My current results were 141 LDL. The first formula would be 155 LDL. The second formula would be 139. So it appears that the lab was using something closer to the second formula, FWIW (this is with my triglycerides at 90). When I was tested in early summer though the LDL number was exactly what the first formula would call for. I wonder if the lab uses a different method if triglycerides are below 100 (which they were for the 2nd test but not the first).

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsmeow This was interesting. My current results were 141 LDL. The first formula would be 155 LDL. The second formula would be 139. So it appears that the lab was using something closer to the second formula, FWIW (this is with my triglycerides at 90). When I was tested in early summer though the LDL number was exactly what the first formula would call for. I wonder if the lab uses a different method if triglycerides are below 100 (which they were for the 2nd test but not the first).

Look on the results and see if you see the word "Calc" next to the LDL number. It's possible that you had the direct measurement.

[Buckeye]

Just got this link in my email today.

Dr. Stephanie Seneff Talks about Statins Side Effects


Dr. Seneff believes that high serum cholesterol and low serum cholesterol sulfate go hand-in-hand, and that the ideal way to bring down your LDL (so-called "bad" cholesterol, which is associated with cardiovascular disease) is to get appropriate amounts of sunlight exposure on your skin.
She explains:

"In this way, your skin will produce cholesterol sulfate, which will then flow freely through the blood—not packaged up inside LDL—and therefore your liver doesn't have to make so much LDL. So the LDL goes down. In fact... there is a complete inverse relationship between sunlight and cardiovascular disease – the more sunlight, the less cardiovascular disease."

What this also means is that when you artificially lower your cholesterol with a statin drug, which effectively reduces the bioavailability of cholesterol to that plaque but doesn't address the root problem, your body is not able to create the cholesterol sulfate your heart needs anymore, and as a result you end up with acute heart failure...Backing up this theory is the fact that in the first decade statin drugs were on the market, from 1980 to 1990, the incidence of heart failure doubled. And heart failure keeps going up right along with the increased use of statins...

"It is very clear to me that statins are causing heart failure," Dr. Seneff says.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Just got this link in my email today. Dr. Stephanie Seneff Talks about Statins Side Effects Dr. Seneff believes that high serum cholesterol and low serum cholesterol sulfate go hand-in-hand, and that the ideal way to bring down your LDL (so-called "bad" cholesterol, which is associated with cardiovascular disease) is to get appropriate amounts of sunlight exposure on your skin. She explains: "In this way, your skin will produce cholesterol sulfate, which will then flow freely through the blood—not packaged up inside LDL—and therefore your liver doesn't have to make so much LDL. So the LDL goes down. In fact... there is a complete inverse relationship between sunlight and cardiovascular disease – the more sunlight, the less cardiovascular disease." What this also means is that when you artificially lower your cholesterol with a statin drug, which effectively reduces the bioavailability of cholesterol to that plaque but doesn't address the root problem, your body is not able to create the cholesterol sulfate your heart needs anymore, and as a result you end up with acute heart failure...Backing up this theory is the fact that in the first decade statin drugs were on the market, from 1980 to 1990, the incidence of heart failure doubled. And heart failure keeps going up right along with the increased use of statins... "It is very clear to me that statins are causing heart failure," Dr. Seneff says.

it is no exaggeration to note that Dr. Seneff is a very accomplished and obviously very intelligent woman. But her life has been spent working on artificial intelligence and various information topics, a rather long way from biochemistry. I listened to a podcast of hers the other day and was very intrigued. She is clearly not just another entrepreneurial blogger/book writer. Still, I would like to learn more.

Stephanie Seneff's Home Page

My LDL perked along from 100-130 mg/dl for years on a low carb diet, then when I decided to just eat all the sat fat I pleased (because, face it, it really, really tastes good!) LDL went up to 170 mg/dl. It is hard enough to keep my GP off my case at 130, and harder yet at 170. It is no good reasoning with doctors, they know how they can get into trouble and how they can stay out of trouble, as was so eloquently expressed by our resident clinician on the board. So one really has to have the courage of his convictions, since the doc is going to be opposed. It is not ideal to have a doctor mad at you; they hold all the cards.

Ha

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha It is hard enough to keep my GP off my case at 130, and harder yet at 170. It is no good reasoning with doctors, they know how they can get into trouble and how they can stay out of trouble, as was so eloquently expressed by our resident clinician on the board. So one really has to have the courage of his convictions, since the doc is going to be opposed. It is not ideal to have a doctor mad at you; they hold all the cards. Ha

Can you give me examples of problems that occur when a doc is mad at you? Also, how do you deal with it?

I'm nervous about my first appt with my new doc, because I don't know how she's going to view low carb. She's very young, so I'm hoping she won't be set in her ways. I'm bringing a bunch of supporting materials in case I have to defend my positions.

With my last doc, I was nervous about bringing this up, but when I did, he said "Oh, my wife and I have been on low carb for five years."

[TromboneAl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Backing up this theory is the fact that in the first decade statin drugs were on the market, from 1980 to 1990, the incidence of heart failure doubled. And heart failure keeps going up right along with the increased use of statins...

That article is interesting, and there could be something there. But statements like this are so misleading, since there's no evidence of a causal relationship. You could just as easily say that the increase was due to increased carb consumption, obesity, use of genetically modified organisms, or cell phones.

[Buckeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl That article is interesting, and there could be something there. But statements like this are so misleading, since there's no evidence of a causal relationship. You could just as easily say that the increase was due to increased carb consumption, obesity, use of genetically modified organisms, or cell phones.

I agree with you.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl That article is interesting, and there could be something there. But statements like this are so misleading, since there's no evidence of a causal relationship. You could just as easily say that the increase was due to increased carb consumption, obesity, use of genetically modified organisms, or cell phones.

That was my impression when I read the post also. Without some context it means nothing at all, and it makes me lean to thinking the author has an agenda.

Sure, I could go read it to find out, but I'm unlikely to do that w/o the context that would tell me that it means something.

So much chaff among the wheat.

-ERD50

[SJ1_]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rambler Most of the cholesterol in your bloodstream is made by your liver, which processes your carbohydrate/sugar intake. If you look up threads and posts by TromboneAl and haha, if I recall correctly, you will find discussions about this. You can also look up information on low carb or reduced carb diets, not necessarily for losing weight, but for maintaining heart health. Thus, my suggestion would be to take a look at the carbohydrates in your diet, and in particular, your consumption of sugars and white anything (bread, rice, pasta, potatoes)...anything that has a high glycemic index and a high glycemic load would be suspect (as are all the whites listed above). Remove or restrict those items and chances are pretty high that your cholesterol will decline. I don't suggest eliminating all carbs, but some people seem to be better off without too much in the carb department. When you reduce carbs, you will need to add some lean proteins and perhaps some good fats such as olive oil, peanut butter, and avocados. You will also want to add some exercise if you haven't already. Hope this gives some, uh, food for thought. R

this has been my experience too, esp. the bad carbs.

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl Look on the results and see if you see the word "Calc" next to the LDL number. It's possible that you had the direct measurement.

Hmm. all the tests are listed:

Cholesterol, Total
HDL Cholesterol
Triglycerides
LDL-Cholesterol

For the first three under the Units Units it says mg/dL. For LDL there is nothing in the Units column.
Then on the line below the above it says:

UNITS" mg/dL (calc)

Below that it shows the CHOL/HDLD Ratio and in the Units column it says (calc)

So based on all that I'm not clear if the LDL is calculated or not....

[Moscyn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moscyn At leastI am addicted to exercise! One up for me there. As regards reducing carbs, well just had grilled salmon and vegetable soup (with a few bits of potatoes) for lunch. Low carbs is pretty difficult but I'm getting there and everything in moderation.

Low carb diet is VERY VERY VERY challenging. I had the above mentioned lunch at 1 pm and my tummy was growling in hunger at 3.30 pm - I gave in to a salmon lettuce sandwich....