Cholesterol query - is this bad or okay?

[Snapsy]

Your ratios are all ideal.. Total cholesterol is a meaningless number best ignored.

Am feeling very reassured! Thank you @bulkbiker !

 

[Snapsy]

You're looking good dude!

Yer not so bad yerself, @TheBigNewt !
Am feeling so much better about this cholesterol lark already!

 

[Snapsy]

Can I just say, chaps, that I LOVE this forum. And I'd say that even if you were all saying 'WHOOOOOOOOOOOAH with the cheese!'.

I had no clue what to make of all this. And now I'm getting a handle on it. Thank you.

I've been all over the place (with my head, I mean) over the last few months. I'm a little over-toppy on my thyroid meds, it transpires as of this morning. I've been going slightly mad! And to be tested unexpectedly for cholesterol when I was being tested for thyroid function, given my continued lower carb lifestyle since my previous test - well. The results had knocked me for six. I've been reading about it ever since last week and I really didn't know what to make of all those numbers!

I'm working away for a couple of days, and we're tagging on a couple of days which will count as our holiday for 2017. I've started my holiday this evening (although working tomorrow) with some Malbec and a (small) cheeseboard. And you lot. Thank you so much.

Love Snapsy xxx

 

[bulkbiker]

Am feeling very reassured! Thank you @bulkbiker !

No worries..
When you are feeling up to it maybe take a read of this guy's work
http://cholesterolcode.com
He sometimes posts here as DaveKeto and is doing some amazing studies on cholesterol and the bull we have been fed about it..

Moderator radio edit.

 

[Snapsy]

No worries..
When you are feeling up to it maybe take a read of this guy's work
http://cholesterolcode.com
He sometimes posts here as DaveKeto and is doing some amazing studies on cholesterol and the b***sh*t we have been fed about it..

Thanks for this link! In fact over the last week (since my non-fasting reading of 7.2!) I've been reading his site with interest.

I'm not waving goodbye to cream etc etc altogether, but I shall perhaps be a little more circumspect in its application to my diet. I will never be 'low fat' (although I'm very slim) but nor will I be applying my butter to my cheese with a shovel!

It's all about balance, I guess. And we folk with diabetes know all about THAT!

 

[bulkbiker]

Thanks for this link! In fact over the last week (since my non-fasting reading of 7.2!) I've been reading his site with interest.

I'm not waving goodbye to cream etc etc altogether, but I shall perhaps be a little more circumspect in its application to my diet. I will never be 'low fat' (although I'm very slim) but nor will I be applying my butter to my cheese with a shovel!

It's all about balance, I guess. And we folk with diabetes know all about THAT!

Ooo butter on cheese one of my treats...

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

You either got it or ya don't.

She has indeed!

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

But my father stopped taking them due to muscle problems, which is a very common side effect.

My father no longer walks round the block and walking anywhere is a problem. He stopped because of the muscle pain but now he's told that it's his age. It could very well be his age now, but not initially. As you say a remarkable compliance with GPs and in this case the same GP that wasn't prescribing my mother anything for high BP when she had her first stroke. That's me venting a little bit of anger.

I find it strange that most people are quite happy to accept recommendations, in this case what our cholesterol levels should be, from people with a financial interest in making that number lower and lower. If you were suing somebody in high court and the litigant was related to the judge you'd be perfectly entitled to ask for another judge, in fact I think it's compulsory.

If we feel that there is a definite correlation between cholesterol levels and cardio vascular disease, then the attached file makes interesting reading. Sadly it's dated 2002 and the data will be different because of the number of people who have stopped smoking in the last 15 years. Statin lovers like to put it down to the drug. The British Heart Foundation have produced some more recent figures that support the data from 2002.

Some of the side effects are because the drugs block nutritional pathways, like CQ10, the most known one.

One of the most annoying about this fact is that it was known as far back as 1990 when Merck Pharmaceutical made a patent application to add CoQ10 to their statin. They even mention the reason for doing so was "to prevent impending muscle pain". I used to take CoQ10 when I was taking Atorvastatin but didn't notice any difference unfortunately. That could be because I wasn't taking enough and annoyingly my GP couldn't even recommend how much to take or even prescribe it. It might be because it was poorly absorbed, maybe the French have other ideas on absorption.

cholesterol lowering route to try and prevent CVDs and strokes.

5.4 seems to be the magic number, the attached graph suggests that total cholesterol below 5.4 sees an increase in CVD as much as above 5.4. Interesting!

In my case the side effects were so awful that when I started low carb 4 years ago and my TC dropped to 3 (Last December it was 4, last March it was 5.7????????) I decided to stop, the side effects have not gone completely and in fact I have a marked weakness on my left leg. I'm fortunate to know that I have the arteries of a 60 year old (I'm 65) with some calcification, not to be confused with the clogging associated with arteriosclerosis, which is where the cholesterol gathers.

 

[Indy51]

y father no longer walks round the block and walking anywhere is a problem. He stopped because of the muscle pain but now he's told that it's his age.

According to this review article, there may not be any benefit in taking statins for the elderly:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/older-adults-may-not-benefit-taking-statins

Give a copy to your dad's GP?

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

Give a copy to your dad's GP?

Thanks for the link. My sister who works in the NHS, although not a medic (she's in OT), is much more familiar with the workings of General Practices, the NHS and certainly more familiar with medical terms than a mere mortal like myself. She is very pro-active where our father's care is concerned, she has discussed statins with the GP who reminded her that he was the doctor, not her. I'm not sure how she handled the situation, my two brothers and I call her Miss Bossy Boots for a reason, perhaps I should send it anonymously as I'm sure there are GPs who don't go any further than NICE guidelines and I doubt if all read those anyway.

It's a shame that with my father being 90, GPs are in a position to say to him "It's your age" too often and he swallows it hook, line and sinker. He's an insulin dependent type II and he has never believed me about reducing his carbs because the GP say . . . . . . . . I think you know what I mean.

 

[Snapsy]

Update: saw an endocrinologist today to talk about a couple of things, and my cholesterol came up as a discussion point. I was reassured that my ratios are fine and dandy.

He was very impressed with my HDL. I asked about whether in his opinion a TC of 6.2 was a cause for concern in terms of my ongoing health, and he called up a site online where he put in my age, conditions, family history of various things etc etc - and we were AGHAST to discover that I have an 80% risk of a heart event in the next ten years........

.......until he showed me his screen and it transpired that he had ticked every box in response to every 'no' answer I had given, rather than leaving it blank! Turns out my risk is 3%.

I didn't know whether to be highly amused or utterly horrified!

 

[therower]

Great news @Snapsy . You must be feeling on top of the world. Glad you've had a positive outcome.
Have to admit I thought 6.2 was a tad high and needed addressing.
What do I know? ****** all it seems .
It does raise concerns of internet diagnosing though. A simple misunderstanding of how to use the site and you could make significant lifestyle decisions totally unnecessarily.
I'm happy all is good for you. Back on the cheese!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Alexandra100]

Right. And she probably isn't a Type 2 diabetic either. Statins will do a pretty good job lowering LDL but there's really nothing available that significantly raises HDL. You either got it or ya don't.

You don't agree that exercise can raise HDL?
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...ol/in-depth/hdl-cholesterol/art-20046388?pg=2

 

[Guzzler]

Does anyone know if labs here in the UK measure sdLDL alongside Trigs separately? These are, Im led to believe, the little beggars that attach themselves to plaques and they injure other cholesteric bodies.

Edited to add.

 

[CherryAA]

You don't agree that exercise can raise HDL?
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-...ol/in-depth/hdl-cholesterol/art-20046388?pg=2

I do know butter does

 

[Snapsy]

Great news @Snapsy . You must be feeling on top of the world. Glad you've had a positive outcome.
Have to admit I thought 6.2 was a tad high and needed addressing.
What do I know? ****** all it seems .
It does raise concerns of internet diagnosing though. A simple misunderstanding of how to use the site and you could make significant lifestyle decisions totally unnecessarily.
I'm happy all is good for you. Back on the cheese!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah but I am addressing it in that I've cut down on gratuitous cheese and cream and am happy to be doing so - but at my last pub lunch I did eat all the fat on my ham..........!

I've just put my data into the Qrisk calculator to have another look for myself, and my 'relative risk' is indeed 3.4% rather than 80. But apparently my heart is FIFTY FIVE YEARS OLD.

Good job I only have the wrinkles of a woman over thirteen years younger!



PS Thyroid meds adjusted very slightly downwards, by 25mcg every other day - with luck that will make me less volatile and less anxious. Yay.

 

[DCUKMod]

Update: saw an endocrinologist today to talk about a couple of things, and my cholesterol came up as a discussion point. I was reassured that my ratios are fine and dandy.

He was very impressed with my HDL. I asked about whether in his opinion a TC of 6.2 was a cause for concern in terms of my ongoing health, and he called up a site online where he put in my age, conditions, family history of various things etc etc - and we were AGHAST to discover that I have an 80% risk of a heart event in the next ten years........

.......until he showed me his screen and it transpired that he had ticked every box in response to every 'no' answer I had given, rather than leaving it blank! Turns out my risk is 3%.

I didn't know whether to be highly amused or utterly horrified!

That's a bit of a shocker, Snapsy.

Was it the QRisk site, or something else, do you know? https://qrisk.org/2017/

You did well on 3%.

 

[Bluetit1802]

That's a bit of a shocker, Snapsy.

Was it the QRisk site, or something else, do you know? https://qrisk.org/2017/

You did well on 3%.

There is an updated edition of the Q-Risk at https://qrisk.org/three/

 

[Bluetit1802]

Does anyone know if labs here in the UK measure sdLDL alongside Trigs separately? These are, Im led to believe, the little beggars that attach themselves to plaques and they injure other cholesteric bodies.

Edited to add.

I don't believe they do these routinely on the NHS but you may find some private ones. It is said that if your trigs are low, your LDL will have many more large fluffy particles and less of the nasty little hard ones.

 

[Snapsy]

That's a bit of a shocker, Snapsy.

Was it the QRisk site, or something else, do you know? https://qrisk.org/2017/

You did well on 3%.

I think it must've been the QRisk one he was using as the questions and the blocky graphic look exactly like it. It's what I reran my data on tonight, anyway.

Mr S has a YOUNGER heart than mine, despite having one of the checkbox issues! His heart is a mere 52, which is only 4 years off his actual age. And I had thought our 6-year age gap was in MY favour...........

Humph.


PS I was pleased with the 3% too! And thanks!

(Edited as got husband's age wrong. Ooooopsie)