Cholesterol - can it be too low?

[sallylondon]

(Sorry I put this in the wrong forum previously.)

I asked my surgery for a print out of numbers for the last 8 years. There are numerous tests I do not understand but cholesterol seemed like a good place to start.

My last HDL was 0.97mmol/L, my LDL 0.88 mmol/L, my triglycerides 1.88mmol/L. Serum cholesterol 2.7mmol/L

I can not discover what numbers = low cholesterol although I can find out that it is dangerous for you.
Is total cholesterol LDL + HDL or do you add triglycerides into the equation as well? What is serum cholesterol?

My numbers seem very low to me compared to what I have read about others. Can anyone help me?

ps - put on Statins as soon as diagnosed 8 years ago

 

[Terminator 2]

Good question Sally, I've an interest on that one myself.

BTW Welcome :wave:

 

[borofergie]

My last HDL was 0.97mmol/L, my LDL 0.88 mmol/L, my triglycerides 1.88mmol/L. Serum cholesterol 2.7mmol/L

Sally,

Your Total Cholesterol is 2.7 mmol/l
TC=HDL+LDL+Trigs/2.19

Your numbers are very low, apart from the triglycerides which are slightly about NICE guidelines (less than 1.7mmol/l).

The data is a bit sketchy, but there is some suggestion that low-cholesterol can cause problems. I wouldn't worry about it too much, I'm in the same boat, but I don't take statins.

You should to talk to your Doctor about the statins:
Firstly, you are exposing yourself to the potential risks of low-cholesterol and the side-effects of the statins, without gaining any benefit.
Secondly, no-one has ever demonstrated a benefit in terms of mortality for women taking statins. It is my strong opinion that they should never be prescribed for females (except perhaps as a last resort).

To date, no large trial of women statin users who already have cardiovascular disease has been shown to increase life expectancy by one day. More importantly, the use of statins in women at lower risk has not increased life expectancy nor prevented heart attacks and stroke.

It raises the question whether women should be prescribed statins at all. I believe that the answer is no. Statins fail to provide any overall health benefit in women. The more recent heart protection study was hailed as a success for men and women, but despite the hype there was no effect on mortality in women.

What the editorial does not mention are differences with women, and where there is no doubt that there is no mortality benefit, as per at least three meta-analyses. Two of them found a relative risk [RR] of 1.00 versus placebo, including one including secondary prevention, and one concluding: "Our study showed that statin therapy reduced the risk of CHD events in men without prior cardiovascular disease, but not in women. Statins did not reduce the risk of total mortality both in men and women"

Suggesting that women at any cardiac risk reduce all-cause deaths by taking statins is, at best, a statistics-derived artifact with unclear but massive numbers needed to treat, and at worst, a delusion or a deception. The reality: even in extreme-risk women in the much-cited 4S study,[5] there were three more deaths in women on statin than on placebo.

I suggest that in a next analysis women and men should be treated separately, and this regarding all single individual endpoints. The universally abused reporting item of "major cardiovascular events" should be banished, since it virtually always includes non-fatal angina-related effects, including medical decisions such as non-life-saving planned revascularisations. For example, in JUPITER, revascularisations were by far the major "event" benefit and, in women, the only significant one after 6500 on-statin years … and cardiovascular mortality was not reduced in either men or women.[6]

When any-cause deaths are not reduced by drugs prescribed for a fatal disease, we are treating either lesser value effects, numbers in lab reports or other surrogate endpoints but not real causes.[7] That is the case for statins in women, a mathematical certainty.

 

[sallylondon]

Hi Terminator 2 and borofergie

Okay so I wasn't dividing the trigs by 2.19 and then adding the whole lot together- who knew that is what I had to do? :crazy: . None of this stuff is simple to understand is it? Thanks for the help.
Your reading is interesting, unfortunately my doctor does not believe in discussing any research with me. I am hoping that will change as I grow in confidence. If nothing else, it looks like my statins should be reduced from 20mg to the lowest possible doseage Now that I have my new knee and have confidence in it I will increase my exercise which should help my results even more.

I am not due for more tests until late August. I might put this to her before then though.

Thanks
Sally