How do I lower my cholesterol?

El_Dangeroso

Diarmuid wrote: »

I don't quite follow you. Is that good or bad?

All good

sunshinyday

Diarmuid wrote: »

Thanks. I think it's all diet for me. I currently do tons of cycling (competitively) so I can only improve on the diet side. However I do eat a Mediterranean(ish) diet so cheese and red meat gets eaten quite a bit. That has to go

hows your cholesterol now? i was doing a search here and found your reply, id be very similar in terms of exercise as yourself. got a reading of 7.0 on the cholesterol, have changed my diet i hope the high reading was more related to a crappy inactive winter due to the icy weather and comfort eating in the cold. Feel good already after 3 weeks of diet change but just curious how yours is now seeing as this is quite an old thread

Sapsorrow

I agree with what Corkcomp said a while back about going to the doctor OP, a psychiatrist isn't trained as a nutritionist or a medical doctor, I'd go talk to someone more qualified if this is still an issue for you.

Darkginger

I thought psychiatrists WERE trained as medical doctors, and it was psychologists who weren't?

Sapsorrow

Darkginger wrote: »

I thought psychiatrists WERE trained as medical doctors, and it was psychologists who weren't?

Oh maybe you're right I was under the impression that they study pharmacology and a few related areas of medicine without doing the whole haul?

corkcomp

this thread is donkeys years old!

@ sunshinyday - yes being inactive and comfort eating ticks all the right boxes for having raised cholesterol

El_Dangeroso

Darkginger wrote: »

I thought psychiatrists WERE trained as medical doctors, and it was psychologists who weren't?

Yeah they do, they work their year as a resident, qualify as MD's and then specialise. Although depending on how long they're out of the internal medicine game they still might not know what they're talking about when it comes to cholesterol.

Heck, I've met cardiologists that have no idea what their talking about when it comes to cholesterol!:D

neuro-praxis

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Heck, I've met cardiologists that have no idea what their talking about when it comes to cholesterol!:D

These kinds of comments really irk me.

If I had a heart condition, I'd be listening to the advice of my cardiologist and not some randomer off the internet.

corkcomp

neuro-praxis wrote: »

These kinds of comments really irk me.

If I had a heart condition, I'd be listening to the advice of my cardiologist and not some randomer off the internet.

I agree. the comments stem from the fact that most cardiologists would have different ideas on how to reduce cholesterol than some of the posters on here. and before you go off on one temple - no offence meant:)

Limerickgal82

People presume having a fatty diet, drinking loads etc affects your cholesterol but people need to realise also that it can be genetic. My entire family have high cholesterol and no matter what we do it is near impossible to reduce it. So everyone should get this checked and check their family history. This poster should go to his/ her doctor and they will advise better than anyone on how to reduce it !

El_Dangeroso

neuro-praxis wrote: »

These kinds of comments really irk me.

If I had a heart condition, I'd be listening to the advice of my cardiologist and not some randomer off the internet.

Yeah, me too! I'm good friends with a doctor who works in cardiology, she's the first to admit that they don't do much on cholesterol in their training. For example they don't do sub-particles at all in college. I'm not sure if it's really a large component in their training or treatment, there's more of a focus on surgical or pharmaceutical intervention when it gets to a cardiologist. Cholesterol measurement and advice is more the domain of a GP.

Transform

amazed no one has metioned the massive role omega 3's play in lowering cholesterol - or maybe it has been mentioned

Effects of prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters on non--high-density lipoprotein cholesterol when coadministered with escalating doses of atorvastatin.
Bays HE, McKenney J, Maki KC, Doyle RT, Carter RN, Stein E.

Louisville Metabolic and Atherosclerosis Research Center, 3288 Illinois Ave, Louisville, KY 40213, USA. hbaysmd@aol.com

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters on non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels in atorvastatin-treated patients with elevated non-HDL-C and triglyceride levels. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study, conducted between February 15, 2007, and October 22, 2007, randomized patients with elevated non-HDL-C (>160 mg/dL) and triglyceride (>or=250 mg/dL and <or=599 mg/dL) levels to double-blind treatment with prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters, 4 g/d, or placebo for 16 weeks. Patients also received escalating dosages of open-label atorvastatin (weeks 0-8, 10 mg/d; weeks 9-12, 20 mg/d; weeks 13-16, 40 mg/d). RESULTS: Prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters plus atorvastatin, 10, 20, and 40 mg/d, reduced median non-HDL-C levels by 40.2% vs 33.7% (P<.001), 46.9% vs 39.0% (P<.001), and 50.4% vs 46.3% (P<.001) compared with placebo plus the same doses of atorvastatin at the end of 8, 12, and 16 weeks, respectively. Prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters plus atorvastatin also reduced median total cholesterol, triglyceride, and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and increased HDL-C levels to a significantly greater extent than placebo plus atorvastatin. Percent changes from baseline low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, apolipoprotein A-I, and apolipoprotein B levels were not significantly different between groups at the end of the study. CONCLUSION: Prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters plus atorvastatin produced significant improvements in non-HDL-C and other lipid parameters in patients with elevated non-HDL-C and triglyceride levels.

and thats with just 4g per day!!

corkcomp

absolutely! another reason why people should eat oily fish as often as they can

Transform

oh one more -

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007 Mar;10(2):129-35.

Omega-3 fatty acids and cardiovascular disease.
von Schacky C.

Preventive Cardiology, Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik Innenstadt, Ludwig Maximilians-Universität München, Münich, Germany. Clemens.vonschacky@med.uni-muenchen.de

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the last 2 years in the cardiovascular field eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) have been investigated in terms of their epidemiology and vascular biology, and in large-scale intervention trials, and incorporated into the guidelines of cardiac societies. EPA and DHA have advanced from scientific research into everyday practice, a development reviewed here. RECENT FINDINGS: EPA and DHA are antiarrhythmic on the supraventricular and ventricular levels, besides having an anti-atherosclerotic effect. Fish rich in EPA and DHA, contaminated with methyl-mercury, appears less protective. Large-scale clinical trials demonstrated that morbidity can be reduced with EPA even in a population already consuming large amounts of EPA and DHA. Therapy with EPA and DHA can be monitored with the omega-3 index, a risk factor for sudden cardiac death. EPA and DHA appear to be cost-saving in the USA, and, as Omacor, are cost-effective in several European countries. SUMMARY: European and American Cardiac Societies incorporated EPA and DHA into recent treatment guidelines for myocardial infarction, prevention of cardiovascular disease, treatment of ventricular arrhythmias and prevention of sudden cardiac death. Physicians need to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease by advocating EPA and DHA to all patients likely to benefit.

fish oils are the number 1 supplement for everyone really and NOT 1g per day please

i could list at least 10 other studies that would show the same benefits - your doctor should be telling everyone this NOT just prescribing statins

cynder

I have high LDL but overall my cholesterol is ok , i hate fish and was told to cut down on cake and chocolate and sweet things like biscuits (not that i eat much of them anyway).

mloc

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Hi Diarmuid, that's right, LDL is almost always calculated using the Friedewald formula, as directly measuring LDL is a very expensive test that isn't widely available. The Friedewald equation becomes inaccurate if the trigs are less than 100 mg/dL which in your case is true.

Your HDL is also fairly high so the LDL that you do have is going to be big and fluffy and heart-protective.

Measuring accurately the levels of various lipoproteins (Chylomicrons, VLDL, LDL, IDL, HDL) is not only costly but incredibly time consuming and an utter pain in the ass to do. I speak from experience.

corkcomp

mloc wrote: »

Measuring accurately the levels of various lipoproteins (Chylomicrons, VLDL, LDL, IDL, HDL) is not only costly but incredibly time consuming and an utter pain in the ass to do. I speak from experience.

HDL, LDL, tri and VLDL were all measured in a blood test i got last year (€30) - the others may be difficult / expensive to test though

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

HDL, LDL, tri and VLDL were all measured in a blood test i got last year (€30) - the others may be difficult / expensive to test though

Your LDL would be calculated, unless you got an NMR, which costs considerably more than €30. LDL calculation using the Friedewald formula is often inaccurate to the tune of 60%.

Anyhoo, to re-iterate my previous post:

Eliminate wheat and cornstarch and sugar
Lose weight
Add or increase omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil
Niacin supplementation
Increase exercise and general physical activity.
Vitamin D supplementation or get some sunlight if you happen to live in a country with some.

This will cause a major improvement in lipids after 3 months.

Transform

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Your LDL would be calculated, unless you got an NMR, which costs considerably more than €30. LDL calculation using the Friedewald formula is often inaccurate to the tune of 60%.

Anyhoo, to re-iterate my previous post:

Eliminate wheat and cornstarch and sugar
Lose weight
Add or increase omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil
Niacin supplementation
Increase exercise and general physical activity.
Vitamin D supplementation or get some sunlight if you happen to live in a country with some.

This will cause a major improvement in lipids after 3 months.

totally agreed!!

who cares if you do not like fish as its a supplement and you cant taste the fish otherwise take udo's oil

Sapsorrow

Has anyone ever looked into other veggie omega 3 supplements besides udos? Are there any good ones that are more affordable? I'm so smashed these days I can barely afford my veggie supps (B-comp, calcium+D, iron and trace elements) as it is so been using loads of ground flax as an alternative but would really like to get more into me.

Transform

fish, flax, walnuts, pecans are pretty much it.

boardswalker

I know I'm a bit late but there has been a lot of negative stuff coming out about Statins.

If you want to know all sides of the story have a look at these:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_04/b4068052092994.htm - 2 year old story in BusinessWeek

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1973295,00.html
A recent story in Time Magazine about Statins for Women

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/business/31statins.html
Story from 31 March in New York Times - Risks seen in Wider Use of Statins in healthy people.

Finally, for an alternative scientific view on Cholesterol http://www.thincs.org/

femur61

corkcomp wrote: »

high cholesterol and weight gain are not always connected TBH .. i would advise you go to to a GP! for fasting lipid tests to establish ldl vs hdl ...

that is so true I am very slim and a very good diet, too good some say, and my cholesteral is 6

moonage

I don't see the point of trying to lower cholesterol.

Generally speaking, higher levels of cholesterol are healthier than lower ones.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/cardiovascular.html

Aard

On that website:
"Disclaimer: Second Opinions is the website of Barry Groves PhD, offering online nutritional facts and online nutritional information. This website should be used to support rather than replace medical advice advocated by physicians."


I think I'll stick with trying to lower my cholesterol.

moonage

Aard wrote: »

On that website:
"Disclaimer: Second Opinions is the website of Barry Groves PhD, offering online nutritional facts and online nutritional information. This website should be used to support rather than replace medical advice advocated by physicians."


I think I'll stick with trying to lower my cholesterol.

He has to put that in for legal reasons.

What he really wants to say is probably "Ignore, or at least question, medical advice advocated by physicians because on nutritional and dietary matters most of them don't know what they're talking about".

dxhound2005

This is where Barry Groves bought his PhD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronte_International_University

Transform

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This is where Barry Groves bought his PhD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronte_International_University

oh please - he is one of many that are and have been banging on about cholesterol myths for donkeys years.

Sapsorrow

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This is where Barry Groves bought his PhD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronte_International_University

Holy crap are you sure? I assumed it was trinity college dublin, I bet thats exactly why he got it there so Irish people would assume that!

corkcomp

Transform wrote: »

oh please - he is one of many that are and have been banging on about cholesterol myths for donkeys years.

a lot of cholesterol myths alright i.e. that high(ish) overall cholesterol is bad which isnt always the case .. you cant say high cholesterol is always ok either, some types ARE bad like VLDL

El_Dangeroso

*Facepalm*

If you want to read a good book on cholesterol buy 'The great cholesterol con' by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. Very entertainingly written and accessible.

goat2

make all your own food
buy nothing prepared like takeaways, frozen dinners, pizzas
as well as being healtier
it is cheaper
you can add more veg,
curries
stews
made with lean meat and plenty veg

moonage

"Why the Cholesterol-Heart Disease Theory is Wrong" by Dr Malcolm Kendrick:

http://www.becomehealthynow.com/ebookprint.php?id=1112

Melia

Aard wrote: »

"Disclaimer: Second Opinions is the website of Barry Groves PhD, offering online nutritional facts and online nutritional information."

So he admits his information isn't always fact?

Transform

Melia wrote: »

So he admits his information isn't always fact?

please give it a rest as it a feckin disclaimer!!

So the most basic of research and you will discover the whole cholesterol is not the whole picture the doctors are selling - i would like to see more fish oils prescribed than statins

Melia

Transform wrote: »

please give it a rest as it a feckin disclaimer!!

So the most basic of research and you will discover the whole cholesterol is not the whole picture the doctors are selling - i would like to see more fish oils prescribed than statins

It was a joke!

I'm not a fan of the man, but I don't know anything at all about cholesterol so I can't comment on that.

Iristxo

This is in line with what the OP posted so long ago. I just had some blood test results back and my cholesterol seems to be high. Total 6.7, trigs 0.37, HDL 1.93, LDL 4.6. Doctor told me if it doesn't change in 3 months he will have to give me tablets for it (statins I pressume). I am actually in between worried and annoyed. I know I do eat a diet that is better than that of 95% of people out there (well pretty much everyone in this forum would I think), so if my cholesterol is this high what is it like for people out there eating your regular SED full of processed products?

I eat meat once a week, liver another once, other than that loads of veg (with every meal, no exception), 5-6 eggs a week and a little dairy, not much, like two glasses of full-fat milk a day (in my porridge and in my kefir) and some 300grms a week of full fat cheese (mozzarella or cottage cheese). Some oats, 4-5 portions of fish, one spoonful of coconut oil in my porridge and some EVOO, very little butter or none. One or two pieces of cake a week and less than half a bar of 90% chocolate a week. So where is this cholesterol coming from if it's not the SAFAs? It's not the sugar since my sugar intake (or any other sweetener) is very low. I do not drink do not smoke and do not exercise. I know, I know about the exercise but right now it's difficult.

I do not want to lower my SAFAs intake cos then I'll be more hungry and will have to eat more or something else, whatever, grains or whatever. I enjoy my current diet.

My father loves sugar but otherwise he has a extremely healthy diet with veggies grown in their own garden and everything and no red meat at all and he has always had high cholesterol. I think it runs in the family like another poster said but nevertheless if I don't lower it they'll give me the tablets which I am not so happy about. I am not about to not take them either if the doctor prescribes them.

I am definitely annoyed now. This nutrition thing is such a riddle.

Transform

Iristxo wrote: »

This is in line with what the OP posted so long ago. I just had some blood test results back and my cholesterol seems to be high. Total 6.7, trigs 0.37, HDL 1.93, LDL 4.6. Doctor told me if it doesn't change in 3 months he will have to give me tablets for it (statins I pressume). I am actually in between worried and annoyed. I know I do eat a diet that is better than that of 95% of people out there (well pretty much everyone in this forum would I think), so if my cholesterol is this high what is it like for people out there eating your regular SED full of processed products?

I eat meat once a week, liver another once, other than that loads of veg (with every meal, no exception), 5-6 eggs a week and a little dairy, not much, like two glasses of full-fat milk a day (in my porridge and in my kefir) and some 300grms a week of full fat cheese (mozzarella or cottage cheese). Some oats, 4-5 portions of fish, one spoonful of coconut oil in my porridge and some EVOO, very little butter or none. One or two pieces of cake a week and less than half a bar of 90% chocolate a week. So where is this cholesterol coming from if it's not the SAFAs? It's not the sugar since my sugar intake (or any other sweetener) is very low. I do not drink do not smoke and do not exercise. I know, I know about the exercise but right now it's difficult.

I do not want to lower my SAFAs intake cos then I'll be more hungry and will have to eat more or something else, whatever, grains or whatever. I enjoy my current diet.

My father loves sugar but otherwise he has a extremely healthy diet with veggies grown in their own garden and everything and no red meat at all and he has always had high cholesterol. I think it runs in the family like another poster said but nevertheless if I don't lower it they'll give me the tablets which I am not so happy about. I am not about to not take them either if the doctor prescribes them.

I am definitely annoyed now. This nutrition thing is such a riddle.

its not really a riddle at all you just need to do a bit more reading - this will help -

http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/2010/03/paleo-diet-q-saturated-fat.html

as will this -

http://robbwolf.com/2009/10/29/cholesterol-we-are-dumb/

El_Dangeroso

This is another good one:

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/i-have-high-cholesterol-and-i-dont-care

The videos are especially good.

Don't forget that 75% of people presenting with their first heart attack have 'normal' LDL cholesterol.

Also, statins have never been shown in any clinical trial to be effective on women. Ask your doctor for some evidence that they are, but it doesn't exist.

Your LDL isn't measured, it's calculated from the Friedewald formula. It becomes inaccurate when trigs are very high or when very low. Your trigs are TINY (well done!) so the calculated LDL will most likely be wrong:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-friedewald-attacks.html (Maybe print this out and show it to the doc?)

Your HDL is brilliant and your trigs are perfect. This is a far better predicator of CVD risk than LDL or total cholesterol.

Iristxo

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Your LDL isn't measured, it's calculated from the Friedewald formula. It becomes inaccurate when trigs are very high or when very low. Your trigs are TINY (well done!) so the calculated LDL will most likely be wrong:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-friedewald-attacks.html (Maybe print this out and show it to the doc?)

Your HDL is brilliant and your trigs are perfect. This is a far better predicator of CVD risk than LDL or total cholesterol.

Well that's the thing, my trigs are very good and so is my HDL. I am going to visit my doctor again on Monday but I am sure he will just go with "total cholesterol not being good etc.". And if he pushes the issue, and he pushes the statins, I really am not confident enough about the whole issue to go against doctor's advise.

I am going to try to reduce the amount of saturated fat that I consume but as it is it isn't that much at all: 5-6 eggs a week, one spoonful of coconut oil a day, one serving a week of lean meat, one serving a week of full-fat cheese and two glasses of full-far milk a day. Most people would consume a few times as much as that, on top of loads of sugar, that's why I don't understand it! The thing is, I like my current diet and I feel well and healthy on it so I don't want to change it too much. If I go easy on the protein and fat I am going to have to up the carbs and I do not want that!

Another thing is my other markers for CVD are all good: no fat around the middle, no spare weight, no insulin problems, no blood pressure issues. I even do calorie restriction, not on purpose, just I don't eat an awful lot and most days I am actually UNDER my necessary calorie intake.

Still, such a riddle.

Iristxo

Transform wrote: »

its not really a riddle at all you just need to do a bit more reading - this will help -

http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/2010/03/paleo-diet-q-saturated-fat.html[/url]

But I don't understand. In that blog Maelan states that "consumption of saturated fatty acids is not an issue if we control several other factors such as those mentioned before" refering to "Lectins and low-grade chronic inflammation". Meaning that if someone is not doing the diet right and for whatever the reason does have low grade chronic inflamation then the SAFAs might prove very harmful! Furthermore the paper that he links to by Dr Cordain basically recommends lower consumption of SFAs in favour of MUFAs for example. Quote:

"− n-3 PUFAs, especially long-chain n-3 PUFAs, reduce CHD risk.
Increasing intake is unlikely to cause harm.
− Industrially produced TFAs increase CHD risk. Restricting or eliminating
TFA intake is unlikely to cause harm.
− MUFAs possibly reduce CHD risk. Substituting MUFAs for TFAs or
SFAs, especially palmitate, is unlikely to cause harm.
− High consumption of palmitate may increase CHD risk. The relationship
of stearate, laurate, and myristate to CHD is less clear.
Partial substitution of MUFAs for palmitate, and perhaps other SFAs,
may reduce CHD risk and is unlikely to cause harm.
− Optimal n-6 LA intake for CHD prevention is a matter of controversy.
US health promotion agencies recommend high LA consumption
[39••] despite the fact that 1) modern Western LA intake is unnaturally
high by evolutionary, historical, and global standards, and 2)
populations with very low CHD risk have uniformly low LA intakes.
CHD risk declined markedly in the sole long-term randomized trial in
which LA was lowered as part of a Mediterranean diet, indicating that
high LA intake is not a requirement for CHD risk reduction. Controlled
trials and observational studies comparing high with very high
LA intakes are insuffi cient for drawing conclusions regarding optimal LA intake. In light of current guidelines urging high LA intake, the
CHD impact of lowering LA to preindustrial levels is an issue of major
public health importance. For now, the replacement of LA-rich oils
with MUFA-rich oils (eg, olive oil) may provide considerable cardiometabolic
benefi ts and is unlikely to do harm."

From Dr Cordain's paper. Essentially he reccomends to limit consumption of mostly, grainf-fed animal meats and dairy.

Also, the paleo diet mostly recommends no dairy? I presume for the same reason as Dr Cordain's, mainly? And heavily supplementing with Omega-3 when consuming a diet rich in animal products? Would it not be better to consume less animal products to begin with, rather than relying to heavily in supplementation?

Iristxo

Ok, I am starting to see how this works. Every single diet will have its big flaw. For raw-foodism is the lack of control over blood sugar levels. For Paleo, the likely raise in cholesterol levels. It is a matter of choosing the least of a few evils, really, isn't it?

Macha

I just went onto the Irish Heart Foundation website and saw that they advocate the exact opposite of a healthy heart diet. How on earth do we combat something as widespread as this?

http://www.irishheart.ie/iopen24/good-eating-t-7_20_82.html

brianthebard

Iristxo wrote: »

Ok, I am starting to see how this works. Every single diet will have its big flaw. For raw-foodism is the lack of control over blood sugar levels. For Paleo, the likely raise in cholesterol levels. It is a matter of choosing the least of a few evils, really, isn't it?

That is part of it but also one should consider the limits of a particular practitioner or science, in this case TG has shown that your blood tests have proven you to be very healthy but your doctor is getting hung up on one number out of the whole, probably because that's what they were taught to do. Eating Paleo or low carb goes against the food pyramid which is still in vogue, so this and its side effects will be considered a flaw by the mainstream, but to those who follow those plans its either not a flaw or its a positive.

El_Dangeroso

Iristxo wrote: »

Ok, I am starting to see how this works. Every single diet will have its big flaw. For raw-foodism is the lack of control over blood sugar levels. For Paleo, the likely raise in cholesterol levels. It is a matter of choosing the least of a few evils, really, isn't it?

Seriously, you don't even know you have high LDL, the formula used to calculate it is inappropriate given your low trigs. You also don't know what type of LDL you have. Big fluffy LDL is heart-protective (this is the kind that sat fat increases), small dense LDL and oxidised LDL is the type that ends up forming arterial plaque.

I'm not for a second suggesting you go against your doctor's advice, but your doctor doesn't have all the information at the moment. Can you ask for a NMR cholesterol test? It's more expensive but they actually measure LDL and its size rather than calculate it.

BTW, eggs have very little sat fat (~1.5g), the reason they were cautioned against is because they contain dietary cholesterol, which has long since been proven to have no effect on blood cholesterol.

Also Cordain's estimation of sat fat consumption is way off, he's using modern game as a measurement but he leaves out internal organs and the fact that we hunted big massive fatty game to extinction during the paleolithic. How he can even come up with a such a specific macronutrient percentage given the wide range of saturated fat consumption amongst modern hunter gatherers (which runs from 20-50%) is laughable tbh. Cordain is subtley trying to backtrack on the sat fat issue without admitting he was wrong on the 10% figure.

Iristxo

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Seriously, you don't even know you have high LDL, the formula used to calculate it is inappropriate given your low trigs. You also don't know what type of LDL you have. Big fluffy LDL is heart-protective (this is the kind that sat fat increases), small dense LDL and oxidised LDL is the type that ends up forming arterial plaque.

I'm not for a second suggesting you go against your doctor's advice, but your doctor doesn't have all the information at the moment. Can you ask for a NMR cholesterol test? It's more expensive but they actually measure LDL and its size rather than calculate it.

I see what you mean and all research point out in that direction but unless my doctor agrees, it will be no use. I see if i can find somewhere where they do that kind of NMR test. If they do it and they find out the LDL is not to worry about will they stop worrying about the total cholesterol figures? Thanks very much for that

El_Dangeroso

Actually, I stand corrected. The NMR will give you the accurate LDL particle count, but only the VAP test will give you the sub-particle breakdown.

Best of luck!

El_Dangeroso

OK, so I recalculated your LDL from the formula for low triglecerides as outlined in this paper

LDL = TC/1.19 + TG/1.9 - HDL/1.1 - 38 (this is for mg/dl not mmol/l like your results so I converted to mg/dl and converted back in the end)

LDL = 261/1.19 + 7/1.9 - 75/1.1 - 38
LDL = 219 + 3.7 - 68 - 38
LDL = 116mg/dl
LDL = 3mmol/l (I think I've got my maths right! Get your doctor to try this formula of course to double check)

3mmol/l LDL is defined by the American Heart association as 'near optimal' LDL. Not 4.6 which is defined as 'very high'.

Your trigs are so low as to be almost non-existant, as great as that is I'd get a re-test as it's artificially inflating your LDL measurement.

EileenG

Iristxo wrote: »

Well that's the thing, my trigs are very good and so is my HDL. I am going to visit my doctor again on Monday but I am sure he will just go with "total cholesterol not being good etc.". And if he pushes the issue, and he pushes the statins, I really am not confident enough about the whole issue to go against doctor's advise.

In the end, you are responsible for your health. You have to give due weight to your doctor's opinion, but it is you who will have to suffer the side-effects and reactions if a medication not the right one for you.

You owe it to yourself to be an educated consumer. At the very least, ask
"What is the benefit if I take this medication?"
"What makes me a candidate for it?"
"What are the common side-effects?"
"What is the Number Needed to Treat?" (this is the number of people to have to take a drug for one person to get a positive result. For statins, the number is extremely high)
"What will happen if I don't take it?"
"What are the alternatives?"

El_Dangeroso

EileenG wrote: »

"What is the Number Needed to Treat?" (this is the number of people to have to take a drug for one person to get a positive result. For statins, the number is extremely high)

*Puts hand up* Miss! Miss! I know Miss!:)

90 people need to take a statin for 5 years to prevent one single heart attack, and then, it only prevents heart attacks in a very small subset of the population, namely men, under the age of 65, that have diagnosed heart disease.

Never mind the inconvenient fact that (cheap and unpatentable) niacin supplementation kicks the ass of statins when compared in clinical trials. (as in niacin actually prevents the build up of arterial plaque, statins seem to do diddly in comparison). Vitamin D also does wonderful things to cholesterol and doesn't cost a fraction of the price.