• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Playing around with cholesterol

sally and james

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,093
Type of diabetes
Family member
Treatment type
Diet only
I've just been reading an article on the BBC News Health page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26152492 on the subject of prescribing statins to all and sundry. You will be aware that there is a proposal to prescribe statins as soon as one's risk exceeds 10%, rather than the present 20%. The article contains a link to QRisk, http://www.qrisk.org/index.php which shows how your risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years is calculated. It's well worth having a play around with it.

i put in James' last lot of figures, which included
Total cholesterol 5.4
HDL 2.18
LDL 2.9
Ratio total/HDL 2.5
This gave him a risk of having a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years as being 18.3%.
He doesn't take statins, despite our GP acting like the local drug pusher.

Then I had a bit of fun. Keeping all other figures constant, I "reduced" his LDL to 1.9, and therefore his total/HDL ratio to 2 and his risk to 17.1%.
Not satisfied with this, I "reduced" him further to LDL of 1. This gave him a ratio of 1.6 and a risk of 16.2%.
Perception of risk is a personal thing, but James and I remain convinced that a statistical risk reduction of 2.1%, just isn't worth a life time of dubious drug consumption.

Then, for further amusement, I reset all the boxes at the correct levels and began to play with blood pressure. I had previously ticked the "on medication" box and James' typical systolic level of 130mmHg. This gave the risk mentioned above of 18.3%. I then unchecked the "on medication" box and put his bp back to where it had been before medication, 180mmHg and pressed the Calculate button. The result, 18.2%. So, better off without the drugs then? Possibly not, but it makes you wonder about the reliability of the calculators which are used to try and medicate us all.

Sally
 
I would imagine the fact that you have put down diabetic would have beena major factor in the result, I'm sure the risk calculator has been mentioned and discussed just recently on the forum.
 
Yes, I put down diabetic, it was one of my constants. Must have missed the recent discussion. I'll try and find it, would be interested to see if others found that varying the variable inputs (i.e. diabetic is here to stay, not variable) made any significant difference to health outcomes. In other words are all the pills statistically worthwhile?
Sally
 


Don't put down diabetes and see what result you get.
 
My DN said my cholesterol needed to be lowered, but even with the numbers I currently have, my percentage risk is 7.3%. And the calculator had to increase my BMi because I'm currently lower than the minimum their formula can use!
 
i put in my current stats and i am 11% i put in my stats 1 year ago apart from it wouldnt let me put bp number in only upto 210 and i was 46% hehe thats gotta be good
 
The problem with that calculator is one of the questions about near relatives dying before the age of 60 with heart problems. My Dad died at 59 from a heart attack. He smoked 60 a day all his adult life. What has that got to do with my health - I've never smoked.
 
Statistics mean nothing to me. Anyone of us could fall either side of the line no matter what the situation, or get knocked down by a bus. All we can do is take care of our health in the best informed way we can, and avoid buses. Lol.
 
more people die by coconuts falling out of trees and hitting them on the head while they sit on the beach than by shark attacks each year, so if we were to look at statistics that would mean its safer to swim with the sharks than sit on the beech
 
noblehead said:
I would imagine the fact that you have put down diabetic would have beena major factor in the result.
Click to expand...
I'm T1.5, aka "T?", which the calculator doesn't cover, so I tried both, and it calculated my risk as follows:
T2: 3.3%
T1: 6.8%
No diabetes: 1.3%
Average risk for my age, sex and ethnicity: 2.3%.

So it looks as if being T1 is what hugely increases risk. The only other factor that makes a dramatic difference is if you tick one of the smoker boxes. Interestingly, staying with T2 but increasing my weight to 100kg only raised my risk to 3.9%.

I didn't play around with the cholesterol or BP because I don't know enough about them to know what's plausible - I only know my own.

Kate
 
As a T1 12.5%
Non Db 4.1%
Average 4.9%

Ach, life's too long anyway......
 
40 year old, non-smoking T1 diabetic.
BMI 21.8
Systolic 105
Cholesterol ratio 2.0

2.1% risk
Normal population 2.0%

If I tick Ex smoker it goes up to 2.8%

I'm not seeing how their heart age takes into account my 4-5 hours exercise per week?
 
Andy12345 said:
more people die by coconuts falling out of trees and hitting them on the head while they sit on the beach than by shark attacks each year, so if we were to look at statistics that would mean its safer to swim with the sharks than sit on the beech
Click to expand...
hehehehe funny but true. I must remember that, I'm a sucker for a scare story.
 
I'll try and remember not to sit under a coconut tree next time I'm on a statistical tropical island
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…