 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Diabetes / July 2009Cholesterol testing
Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. If I remember correctly, I had it done back in Oct. of last year but they don't know this. Anyway... How important do you think it is to have this done? I'm thinking not very. I also don't want to be on this statin I am taking but can't figure a way to get out of taking it. It was my former Dr. who insisted I be on it. It it were up to him, I think everyone would be on it! > Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get my > cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. If I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > figure a way to get out of taking it. It was my former Dr. who insisted I > be on it. It it were up to him, I think everyone would be on it! <http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=b2wagner+statin&i e=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8> Some where in the debris . Bill  SignatureGarden in shade zone 5 S Jersey USA http://prototype.nytimes.com/gst/articleSkimmer/ >> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get >> my [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Some where in the debris . Whatever that was, it didn't work. >>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>> get my [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Whatever that was, it didn't work. Try taking away the end-of-line between the two parts. The <> around the link usually takes away the need to do this for long links, but not always. Robert Miles > Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to > get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who insisted I be on it. It it were up to him, I think everyone would > be on it! If you don't want to take it - don't take it. You're the boss. And the consequences will be yours. I've had my cholesterol checked at every physical for as long as I can recall. And my numbers have been good - currently total 138 and ratio is 2.2. What's the big deal? >> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >> get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If you don't want to take it - don't take it. You're the boss. And the > consequences will be yours. What consequenses? > I've had my cholesterol checked at every physical for as long as I can > recall. And my numbers have been good - currently total 138 and ratio is > 2.2. What's the big deal? Why does it need to be checked? Mine is in range and has been since I quit smoking. But I was still put on a statin. And I think that's bad. But really I mean... Why do they check? >>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>> get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > What consequenses? Possibly stroke, heart disease, . . . You don't know the consequences of high cholesterol? >> I've had my cholesterol checked at every physical for as long as I can >> recall. And my numbers have been good - currently total 138 and ratio [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quit smoking. But I was still put on a statin. And I think that's bad. > But really I mean... Why do they check? >> What consequenses? > > Possibly stroke, heart disease, . . . You don't know the consequences of > high cholesterol? I know what they used to say, but recent things I have read have said this stuff simply isn't true! >>> What consequenses? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I know what they used to say, but recent things I have read have said > this stuff simply isn't true! OK. >> What consequenses? > >Possibly stroke, heart disease, . . . You don't know the consequences of >high cholesterol? Actually, nobody really seems to. Not according to the research anyway. For a start, "high cholesterol" needs definition - are we discussing total cholesterol, LDL, HDL, triglycerides, apolipoproteins A1 or B, VLDL? Or none of the above. Or are we discussingt cholesterol ratio? Total/HDL or trigs/HDL? So, if you believe there are consequences (and actually, for some things such as triglycerides I do too) can you support those beliefs with some credible sources? >>> What consequenses? >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > such as triglycerides I do too) can you support those beliefs with some > credible sources? No, I'm not able to. I'm also not willing to put my faith in one or two current reports taking exception. I strive to keep them all (total, ldl, hdl, trigs and ratio) within accepted limits. It gives me peace of mind - I'm not willing to take uneccesary gambles. And for the same reason, I strive to keep my FBG and A1C numbers where I believe they should be. > > So, if you believe there are consequences (and actually, for some things > > such as triglycerides I do too) can you support those beliefs with some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'm not willing to take uneccesary gambles. And for the same reason, I > strive to keep my FBG and A1C numbers where I believe they should be. Well said! And it applies to many things beyond just cholesterol. Kurt Ray, I am with you my cholesterol is in your ball park and my number is 2.3. i am a believer of knowing what I got. Loretta -- I > Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get > my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > insisted I be on it. It it were up to him, I think everyone would be on > it! I have a complete blood panel done at least once a year (A1c, cholestrol, triglycerides, etc.). MaryL >> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get >> my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I have a complete blood panel done at least once a year (A1c, cholestrol, > triglycerides, etc.). But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? >>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get >>> my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and the only thing they can do to WE is ask WE to go elsewhere... Doctors check it to cover their their rear if you drop dead from clogged arteries going to the heart or brain. If your husband asks the doc what happened after your funeral the doctor can just show him the records where he tried and you refused. > WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. > Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and > the only thing they can do to WE is ask WE to go elsewhere... I know that. But my question is why do we have it tested? > Doctors check it to cover their their rear if you drop dead from > clogged arteries going to the heart or brain. > If your husband asks the doc what happened after your funeral the > doctor can just show him the records where he tried and you refused. So you are saying it is for clogged arteries? >> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. >> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and >> the only thing they can do to WE is ask WE to go elsewhere... > > I know that. But my question is why do we have it tested? Raised cholesterol levels are part and parcel of the metabolic syndrome. Whenever I go to the doctor for tests he writes "type 2 diabetic" on the referral form for the lab and they automatically test certain things, e.g FBG, A1c, lipids etc. I have never not had cholesterol, triglycerides etc tested when I have had glucose tests since becoming diabetic. : >> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. : >> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and : >> the only thing they can do to WE is ask WE to go elsewhere... : > : > I know that. But my question is why do we have it tested? : Raised cholesterol levels are part and parcel of the metabolic syndrome. : Whenever I go to the doctor for tests he writes "type 2 diabetic" on the : referral form for the lab and they automatically test certain things, e.g : FBG, A1c, lipids etc. I have never not had cholesterol, triglycerides etc : tested when I have had glucose tests since becoming diabetic. +1 Wendy On 7/14/09 11:24 AM, in article h3iih2$l22$1@reader1.panix.com, "W. Baker" <wbaker@panix.com> wrote: > : >> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. > : >> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Wendy My GP, Endo and the Diabetes Clinic all insist on every six months along with A1C, FG, Bun Creatinine, etc. There are times when I feel like a human pin cushion. :-) SignatureMartha T2 Canada 1500mg. Metformin, 4mg. Avandia 50mcg. Synthroid, Advair, Singulair : On 7/14/09 11:24 AM, in article h3iih2$l22$1@reader1.panix.com, "W. Baker" : <wbaker@panix.com> wrote: : > : >> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. : > : >> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : > : > Wendy : My GP, Endo and the Diabetes Clinic all insist on every six months along : with A1C, FG, Bun Creatinine, etc. There are times when I feel like a human : pin cushion. :-) But isn't it one blood draw, just several tubes?:-) I get this every 3 months and about every 6-9 monthx I get the extra test(same drw) for the VLDL with actual counting of th assorted choresterol tests with little diagrams of where one should be and where one is plus comments by my endo when he forwards the results to me. I see you are on Advair. How does that work fo ryou? When my husband was put on it he was suddenly unable to sing. this also happened to a friend who sings in synagogues for a living! Both stopped the med. Wendy On 7/14/09 3:24 PM, in article h3j0jb$293$1@reader1.panix.com, "W. Baker" <wbaker@panix.com> wrote: > : On 7/14/09 11:24 AM, in article h3iih2$l22$1@reader1.panix.com, "W. Baker" > : <wbaker@panix.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Wendy Hi, Wendy You're right. It is one session, but I do get 6 or 7 vials each time, Plus urine tests as well. I have found the Advair helpful. My singing improved as I can now breath without a lot of "guck" in my throat. I have found the Singulair to be even more helpful. It's terribly expensive though. I doubt I could afford it if it weren't paid by Pharmacare. I had to get special forms filled out and approved though before the government would pay for it. SignatureMartha T2 Canada 1500mg. Metformin, 4mg. Avandia 50mcg. Synthroid, Advair, Singulair >> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. >> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >So you are saying it is for clogged arteries? Very roughly it is a check for the level of hot dogs and pepperoni pizza circulating in your blood that can eventualy clog arteries. Some clogged arteries can be checked by the use of ultrasound. Mainly the large arteries in your neck and your legs. For the heart they usually have to wait until something happens and then they run dye in to check for any blockages with an xray. You have heard of heart bypass surgery right? They are checkiing your blood to help prevent that. Statins I don't know. I haven't heard of any death certificates listing cause of death as statins. but who knows.... Baseline chest xray would seem to be good medicine actually. Any problems down the road where they need to run another xray the doctor doesn't have to guess if something has changed. >>> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. >>> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > For the heart they usually have to wait until something happens and > then they run dye in to check for any blockages with an xray. Well, I never eat either thing. > You have heard of heart bypass surgery right? > They are checkiing your blood to help prevent that. And yet everything I have read has said otherwise. > Statins I don't know. I haven't heard of any death certificates > listing cause of death as statins. but who knows.... They don't necessarily kill but from what I have read they cause neuropathy, pain, tiredness and memory loss. I have been complaining of the last two things for over a year now. > Baseline chest xray would seem to be good medicine actually. > Any problems down the road where they need to run another xray the > doctor doesn't have to guess if something has changed. Well, my insurance wouldn't pay for it. And then when I *did* need an X Ray, it was never referred to. >>>> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. >>>> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Well, I never eat either thing. How about from this list? http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/cholesterol-high-avoid.php >> You have heard of heart bypass surgery right? >> They are checkiing your blood to help prevent that. > >And yet everything I have read has said otherwise. What is the said otherwise? Why do people have heart bypass surgery? >> Statins I don't know. I haven't heard of any death certificates >> listing cause of death as statins. but who knows.... > >They don't necessarily kill but from what I have read they cause neuropathy, >pain, tiredness and memory loss. I have been complaining of the last two >things for over a year now. Since you started taking statins? Your decision naturally along with your doctor, but I would have to seriously think about stopping them to see what happens... >> Baseline chest xray would seem to be good medicine actually. >> Any problems down the road where they need to run another xray the >> doctor doesn't have to guess if something has changed. > >Well, my insurance wouldn't pay for it. And then when I *did* need an X >Ray, it was never referred to. Strange. My wife always gets asked about previous xrays. >>>>> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. >>>>> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > How about from this list? > http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/cholesterol-high-avoid.php I don't know that I believe that list. My chemistry teacher told us that the cholesterol we eat does not affect our cholesterol. However, on that list, the only thing I eat is beef. I do eat bacon occasionally. I didn't see it on the list but I should think it would be. I am not a big meat eater. Most of my meals are vegan. I can not call myself a vegan because I do have to eat some meat or I'll become anemic. I avoid eggs and dairy because of food allergies. I did eat margarine yesterday but that is something I haven't had in years. >>> You have heard of heart bypass surgery right? >>> They are checkiing your blood to help prevent that. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What is the said otherwise? > Why do people have heart bypass surgery? I don't know. I don't know of anyone who has had it. >>> Statins I don't know. I haven't heard of any death certificates >>> listing cause of death as statins. but who knows.... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Since you started taking statins? Yes. > Your decision naturally along with your doctor, but I would have to > seriously think about stopping them to see what happens... Why? Aren't statins usually given for high cholesterol? Mine wasn't high! >>> Baseline chest xray would seem to be good medicine actually. >>> Any problems down the road where they need to run another xray the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Strange. My wife always gets asked about previous xrays. They never seem to ask here. I have switched Drs. several times and they didn't want my previous records. >> How about from this list? >> http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/cholesterol-high-avoid.php >> >I don't know that I believe that list. My chemistry teacher told us that >the cholesterol we eat does not affect our cholesterol. Not true, but... Genes have a lot to do with it. Some people look at a hot dog and up go the numbers. Others it doesn't do a thing. > However, on that >list, the only thing I eat is beef. I do eat bacon occasionally. I didn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >because of food allergies. I did eat margarine yesterday but that is >something I haven't had in years. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/can-bacon-be-part-of-a-healthy-diet >>>> You have heard of heart bypass surgery right? >>>> They are checkiing your blood to help prevent that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >I don't know. I don't know of anyone who has had it. http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4484 The arteries that bring blood to the heart muscle (coronary arteries) can become clogged by plaque (a buildup of fat, cholesterol and other substances). This can slow or stop blood flow through the heart's blood vessels, leading to chest pain or a heart attack. Increasing blood flow to the heart muscle can relieve chest pain and reduce the risk of heart attack. >>>> Statins I don't know. I haven't heard of any death certificates >>>> listing cause of death as statins. but who knows.... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Why? Aren't statins usually given for high cholesterol? Mine wasn't high! So why take them. Stop for a few weeks and see what happens. >>>> Baseline chest xray would seem to be good medicine actually. >>>> Any problems down the road where they need to run another xray the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >They never seem to ask here. I have switched Drs. several times and they >didn't want my previous records. I guess I have been spoiled by having the military keep track of things for about 47 years now. Then the VA has their computer records, but wouldn't you know the computers don't talk to one another! Do you keep copies of blood tests and such? Seems rather strange to go into a doctor and start from scratch every time. <snip> > Do you keep copies of blood tests and such? > Seems rather strange to go into a doctor and start from scratch every > time. Yes. >How about from this list? >http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/cholesterol-high-avoid.php There is a difference between dietary cholesterol, which that list shows, and serum cholesterol, which is the cholesterol in your blood. >>How about from this list? >>http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/cholesterol-high-avoid.php > >There is a difference between dietary cholesterol, which that list >shows, and serum cholesterol, which is the cholesterol in your blood. And at the start of the list it says: "One of the causes of high serum cholesterol is consumption of diet that is high in cholesterol." >>> How about from this list? >>> http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/cholesterol-high-avoid.php [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "One of the causes of high serum cholesterol is consumption of diet > that is high in cholesterol." Excess carbs in the diet are converted to triglycerides for storage by the body. This is why a lower carb diet not only reduces glucose, but also triglycerides. And given that elevated triglycerides contribute to the manufacture of LDL, hot dog buns (among other refined foods) are a good thing to avoid. Best regards, Michelle C., T2 >>>> WE don't have to have it checked if WE don't want to. >>>> Some doctors might not like it if WE don't do what they say and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> Statins I don't know. I haven't heard of any death certificates >> listing cause of death as statins. but who knows.... Not to mention an increased risk of cancer. > They don't necessarily kill but from what I have read they cause neuropathy, > pain, tiredness and memory loss. I have been complaining of the last two [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well, my insurance wouldn't pay for it. And then when I *did* need an X > Ray, it was never referred to. Julie, you're right, this topic is mired in controversy. For years doctors thought there was a direct relationship between high cholesterol and heart disease. However, studies indicate that this may not be so. Many people who have heart disease have perfectly normal lipids. So there is something else going on. As for statins, there has not been one study that indicates they are appropriate for women, for men who have not already had a heart attack or for prevention. There have been studies that indicated that the untoward side-effects may occur more often than is reported. Also one study I read indicated that while the statin group studied had fewer strokes than the control group, they still had an increased mortality due to all other causes. Unfortunately, I don't have the cite for that one, but check this link out: (the entire article is interesting, but I'm taking you directly to page 4 because this is where statins are specifically discussed) http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/20-wonder-drugs-that-can-kill/article_view? b_start:int=3&-C= Best regards, Michelle C., T2 <snip> > Julie, you're right, this topic is mired in controversy. For years > doctors thought there was a direct relationship between high cholesterol [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to page 4 because this is where statins are specifically discussed) > http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul/20-wonder-drugs-that-can-kill/article_view? b_start:int=3&-C= Thanks! My feeling is that statins work for me and therefore, I have no problem taking them. I was originally diagnosed with cholesterol in the high 400s and because of change in diet and statins, my cholesterol is about 132 I may be lucky not to have had any side effect Loretta -- I >Very roughly it is a check for the level of hot dogs and pepperoni >pizza circulating in your blood that can eventualy clog arteries. Very roughly? That much is right. However, I must admit to some degree there is an element of truth; the hot dog bun and the pizza dough certainly do have a big affect on triglycerides. >>Very roughly it is a check for the level of hot dogs and pepperoni >>pizza circulating in your blood that can eventualy clog arteries. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >hot dog bun and the pizza dough certainly do have a big affect on >triglycerides. Why would the hot dog bun have a big affect on triglycerides? Costco hot dog buns that I have in the freezer: Calories 110 Calories from Fat 15% Total Fat 1.5g Saturated Fat 0g Trans Fat 0g Polyunsaturated Fat 1g Monounsaturated 0g Cholesterol 0g "A typical jumbo size hot dog has 180 calories and 18 grams of fat. A regular size two-ounce hot dog has 150 calories and 15 grams of fat." http://www.womens-health-questions.com/hot-dog-calories.html >>>Very roughly it is a check for the level of hot dogs and pepperoni >>>pizza circulating in your blood that can eventualy clog arteries. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > regular size two-ounce hot dog has 150 calories and 15 grams of fat." > http://www.womens-health-questions.com/hot-dog-calories.html Carbs. Excess carbs cause high triglycerides. >>>>Very roughly it is a check for the level of hot dogs and pepperoni >>>>pizza circulating in your blood that can eventualy clog arteries. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > >Carbs. Excess carbs cause high triglycerides. My bad. I find the protein and fat in a regular hot dog partly buffers the carbs in the bun.. Of course with pizza the whole thing is a lost cause... >>>Very roughly it is a check for the level of hot dogs and pepperoni >>>pizza circulating in your blood that can eventualy clog arteries. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >regular size two-ounce hot dog has 150 calories and 15 grams of fat." >http://www.womens-health-questions.com/hot-dog-calories.html You left off the carbs. It's the carbs that will have most effect on the trigs, although I accept that an EXCESS of fat can also cause problems. If the trigs are low and the HDL is acceptable I'm failry uninterested in the LDL. Later I'll try to find some older papers to support my point of view. For the moment, look for the reference to a report on diet and children that I will post in a separate thread. I am starting to come to the view that in human diet the "Goldilocks Principle" applies. You haven't heard about it because I just made it up. Whether it's fat, protein or carbs it is really a matter of not too much, not too little, but just right. The problem is that over the past few decades official dietary guidelines have become more and more extreme in promoting less and less fat and more carbs. So they promote too little fat and too much carbs. Balancing that we have extreme low-carbers at the other end of the spectrum. Personally I believe there is a fairly wide "just right" range. In broad terms that is a lot less carbs balanced by a little more fat and a little more protein than the present guidelines. Just playing with ideas, I think I'll expand on that later. >You left off the carbs. It's the carbs that will have most effect on >the trigs, although I accept that an EXCESS of fat can also cause [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >more fat and a little more protein than the present guidelines. Just >playing with ideas, I think I'll expand on that later. Diabetic dietician I went to 60 carb meals based on something like 25% protein, and the left over 75% was split fat and carbs. The Burger King sausage, egg, and cheese biscuit is close to those percentages.<G> >>You left off the carbs. It's the carbs that will have most effect on >>the trigs, although I accept that an EXCESS of fat can also cause [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The Burger King sausage, egg, and cheese biscuit is close to those > percentages.<G> Bwahaha! >>You left off the carbs. It's the carbs that will have most effect on >>the trigs, although I accept that an EXCESS of fat can also cause [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >The Burger King sausage, egg, and cheese biscuit is close to those >percentages.<G> Yep. Sad but true. > >> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get > >> my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But why? �I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't > necessarily indicative of a heart attack. �So why do we have it checked? Not sure if this is just another of your posts asking a lot of rhetorical questions that you don't really want answers to, but... Where have you seen "so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't indicative of a heart attack"? Here? On the Internet? On the nightly news as a sound byte? Basically hearsay? When does supposition and random articles become fact? You should discuss this with your doctor who knows you personally. If you don't like the answers he/she gives you then get a second opinion from another doctor. And repeat process until you either find someone you believe or someone who will tell you what you want to hear. Why do we have it (cholesterol) checked? The same reason we have other things checked....to monitor our overall health. Like checking bg numbers, the more information you have the more you have to go on when determining cause/effect. Checking also will flag anything that is out of norm and a trained professional can determine a) why it is abnormal, and b) what might be done about it if it is so outside a predetermined range that action needs to be taken. Those ranges are determined by a body of medical authorities who have not come to the ranges by pulling them out of their a.ses. There are some layman conspiracy theorists who believe it's all a big covert plot, and others who don't "agree" and think they know better. But the truth is those ranges are set for a good reason. In the end you always have the option to do whatever you want to do, which includes walking away from your doctor and not taking his or her learned advice. Seems to me that finding someone whom you trust, learning all you can on your own, and being smart enough to realize you don't know more than the person you trust, is key to achieving the best health possible. It is imperative that we do research on our own so we can ask the doctor we trust relevant and intelligent questions. Ultimately, you are part of your health team. It seems to me that at this point if you don't know why basic tests are conducted then you have a lot to learn. No doubt my post is an exercise in futility, but, like you, sometimes I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. Kurt On Jul 13, 8:36?pm, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@verizon.net> wrote: > "MaryL" <stanco...@yahoo.comTAKE-OUT-THE-LITTER> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > But why? ?I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't > necessarily indicative of a heart attack. ?So why do we have it checked? Not sure if this is just another of your posts asking a lot of rhetorical questions that you don't really want answers to, but... Where have you seen "so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't indicative of a heart attack"? Here? On the Internet? On the nightly news as a sound byte? Basically hearsay? When does supposition and random articles become fact? You should discuss this with your doctor who knows you personally. If you don't like the answers he/she gives you then get a second opinion from another doctor. And repeat process until you either find someone you believe or someone who will tell you what you want to hear. Various magazines. My Dr. doesn't know me personally. My Dr. is new. Why do we have it (cholesterol) checked? The same reason we have other things checked....to monitor our overall health. Like checking bg numbers, the more information you have the more you have to go on when determining cause/effect. Checking also will flag anything that is out of norm and a trained professional can determine a) why it is abnormal, and b) what might be done about it if it is so outside a predetermined range that action needs to be taken. Those ranges are determined by a body of medical authorities who have not come to the ranges by pulling them out of their a.ses. There are some layman conspiracy theorists who believe it's all a big covert plot, and others who don't "agree" and think they know better. But the truth is those ranges are set for a good reason. Well, my cholesterol was not out of the norm and yet I was put on a statin. Everything I've seen about statins says they are not good for you. And yes, I've read that here. So why are they putting people on statins to lower their cholesterol if that is only going to cause new problems and not improve anything? In the end you always have the option to do whatever you want to do, which includes walking away from your doctor and not taking his or her learned advice. Seems to me that finding someone whom you trust, learning all you can on your own, and being smart enough to realize you don't know more than the person you trust, is key to achieving the best health possible. It is imperative that we do research on our own so we can ask the doctor we trust relevant and intelligent questions. Ultimately, you are part of your health team. It seems to me that at this point if you don't know why basic tests are conducted then you have a lot to learn. I don't know if my Dr. has learned advice or not. The one who insisted I be on a statin and wrote a nasty note to my Endo. who at that point put me on a statin is no longer at that clinic. Where did he go? I don't know. He is also the one who insisted I needed a chest X Ray just because I'd never had one. And then my insurance refused to pay for it because they said I didn't need it. Now here's the weird thing. None of the Endos I've seen, and I've seen 4 of them now have ever tested my cholesterol. They've tested those things, but not that. No doubt my post is an exercise in futility, but, like you, sometimes I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. I am not ranting. Just questioning what good the test is if the med being used to lower cholesterol doesn't have any benefits. On Jul 13, 8:36�pm, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> Anyway... How important do you think it is to have this done? Very > >> I'm thinking not very. Than you are wrong > Why do we have it (cholesterol) checked? > The same reason we have other > things checked....to monitor our overall health. > But the truth is those ranges are > set for a good reason. > It seems to me that at this point if you don't know > why basic tests are conducted then you > have a lot to learn. > I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. ten points Kurt ... :) Hi Julie, the discussion is not about the significance of the cholesterol panel it is about if, at what value, and how to modify it.With what kind of medicine and or diet.If your cholesterol is too high your chances of clogged arteries are increased. Like Kurt and Ozgirl said already your cholesterol panel is one of the thinghs you need to know and improve on. Body weight, waist/hip ratio, A1c, fasting glucose, bloodpressure, the state of the nerves in your legs and eyes, the function of your kidneys must all be checked on a regular scale.Like once a year. You ate too much and moved too little.No you have a metabolic disease if you want to survive it than you must do a few things. Gys > On Jul 13, 8:36�pm, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Than you are wrong http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/ExerciseFitness/15061?userid=147139&impr essionId=1247548368917&utm_source=mSpoke&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DailyHead lines&utm_content=Group1 SAN FRANCISCO, July 13 Biking or walking to work may boost fitness and reduce risk for obesity and cardiovascular disease, researchers affirmed. Men who got to work by such 'active commuting' cut the risk of obesity in half and significantly reduced triglyceride levels, blood pressure, and insulin levels compared with riding to work, Penny Gordon-Larsen, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and colleagues reported in the July 13 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine.These effects in a large cross-sectional study were accompanied by a significant increase in fitness among both men and women who walked or biked to work. Gys > On Jul 13, 8:36?pm, "Julie Bove" <julieb...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > You ate too much and moved too little.No you have a metabolic disease if > you want to survive it than you must do a few things. Huh? I didn't eat too much or move too little. I was very active when I was diagnosed! >No doubt my post is an exercise in futility, but, like you, sometimes >I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. > >Kurt No problem. It's never stopped you before, no need to change things now. >>No doubt my post is an exercise in futility, but, like you, sometimes >>I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No problem. It's never stopped you before, no need to change things > now. Apparently it's never stopped you from any opportunity to make yourself look the fool. Your reply to Kurt certainly wasn't needed or called for. If you were a real man, you could have just shook your head and skipped right on over it. How sad, it's been SO nice around here. Guess I'll go back to lurkdom now. pico blvd. >>>No doubt my post is an exercise in futility, but, like you, sometimes >>>I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >pico blvd. Oh dear. I appear to have upset you. Have we met in a past persona? No need to leave on my account. Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. -- d&e, metformin 2000 mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com (Lancet Change - St Swithun's Day) http://loraltravel.blogspot.com (Jerash, an Ancient City in Jordan) >>>>No doubt my post is an exercise in futility, but, like you, sometimes >>>>I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. I asked whether we had met in a past persona, but you neglected to reply. I've just discovered that we have. And it makes the attitude very clear. Why the secrecy? > >>No doubt my post is an exercise in futility, but, like you, sometimes > >>I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > pico blvd. Alan seems to feel a need to respond to every thread he missed during his sabbatical, especially the ones in which someone dares to post anything that may differ from his agenda. Think of it as his Ironman Triathlon of compulsive obsessiveness. Notice how peaceful it has been in here the past month? Now, notice how in a couple of days the insults start flying? Coincidence? Kurt P.S. Pico, please submit immediately your bio, daily menu, and complete medical records to Alan for his scrutiny and diagnosis. :) >> >>No doubt my post is an exercise in futility, but, like you, sometimes >> >>I too feel the need to rant for no particular reason. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >P.S. Pico, please submit immediately your bio, daily menu, and >complete medical records to Alan for his scrutiny and diagnosis. :) Good morning Kurt. I hope you had a wonderful day in sunny California. Tell us all about it. What is happening in Hollywoodland at the moment? I thought I'd try to start a pleasant and bland conversation to set the tone for a new era of peace and friendship all over the world, Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia. -- d&e, metformin 2000 mg Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter. http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com (Lancet Change - St Swithun's Day) http://loraltravel.blogspot.com (Jerash, an Ancient City in Jordan) On Jul 16, 7:01?am, "pico" <picog...@picopalace.gov> wrote: > "Alan S" <loralgtweightandca...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > pico blvd. Alan seems to feel a need to respond to every thread he missed during his sabbatical, especially the ones in which someone dares to post anything that may differ from his agenda. Think of it as his Ironman Triathlon of compulsive obsessiveness. Notice how peaceful it has been in here the past month? Now, notice how in a couple of days the insults start flying? Coincidence? -- Nope no coincidence here at all. Why I said how nice it's been around here when he was away. Truth hurts sometimes but needs to be told. Why I also said that I'll be going back into lurkdom. His childish bs really shouldn't be responded to, me bad I know. Kurt P.S. Pico, please submit immediately your bio, daily menu, and complete medical records to Alan for his scrutiny and diagnosis. :) - lmfao!!! yeah right-o. I'll get right on that. Shall I submit it in pdf, xml or doc format? my bio, male, older then 29 a few times over, divorced atm and recently moved (well about a year ago). my diet currently is mcd's, taco bell, kfc, pizza hut, papa johns, am/pm hot dog stand, dairy queen and any other place that's on the way to or from while i'm out and about. is this what you wanted and needed? :) glad I could help. >But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? Yeah. I'd rather check other inflammation markers - and I sure as hell wouldn't be popping a statin under any circumstances whatsoever (unless I was an under-65 male who had already had a heart attack, that being the only group with proven benefit). OTOH, it's an easy way of checking your heart attack risk and IR, through the various ratios. Nicky. T2 dx 05/04 + underactive thyroid D&E, 150ug thyroxine Last A1c 5.2% BMI 26 > Yeah. I'd rather check other inflammation markers - and I sure as hell > wouldn't be popping a statin under any circumstances whatsoever > (unless I was an under-65 male who had already had a heart attack, > that being the only group with proven benefit). OTOH, it's an easy way > of checking your heart attack risk and IR, through the various ratios. Well, I think lipids ratios and particle size are useful information in evaluating risk. Unfortunately, drug companies have perverted the usefulness of the tests to just address drug targets by falsely labeling LDL as "bad" cholesterol. If you want to lose your ability to make sex hormones and other steroids, raise your cancer risk and pervert your immune function, I guess it's bad. Susan >>But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >>necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that being the only group with proven benefit). OTOH, it's an easy way > of checking your heart attack risk and IR, through the various ratios. That's what I'm thinking. >>But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >>necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that being the only group with proven benefit). OTOH, it's an easy way >of checking your heart attack risk and IR, through the various ratios. "...April 15, 2009 -- Taking statins, which are drugs that lower cholesterol, may make stroke 18% less likely for high-risk patients..." >>>But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >>>necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cholesterol, may make stroke 18% less likely for high-risk > patients..." Where are you quoting that from? >>>>But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >>>>necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Where are you quoting that from? http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20090415/statins-may-lower-stroke-risk >>>>>But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >>>>>necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20090415/statins-may-lower-stroke-risk Okay. Thanks! >>>>> But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >>>>> necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://www.webmd.com/stroke/news/20090415/statins-may-lower-stroke-risk The critical information left out of the article is what is the all cause mortality rate between the statin group and the control group. It doesn't do me much good to be protected from stroke if my risk of dying from another cause is increased. Best regards, Michelle C., T2 >>>>>> But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >>>>>> necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > do me much good to be protected from stroke if my risk of dying from > another cause is increased. Very true. >>>>>> But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't >>>>>> necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >doesn't do me much good to be protected from stroke if my risk of dying >from another cause is increased. I'll bet if you ride a bike to work to improve your health your risk of being run over by a truck increases. Just a wild guess of course. >>The critical information left out of the article is what is the all >>cause mortality rate between the statin group and the control group. It [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I'll bet if you ride a bike to work to improve your health your risk >of being run over by a truck increases. Just a wild guess of course. Ask Henry to comment on that one. Same week he had his prang I just missed a close one myself. Nearly went over the hadlebars; I didn't realise my brakes were that good:-) >>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>> get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't > necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? I've seen some articles saying that it is necessary to separately measure the amounts of a few types of cholesterol (LDL, HDL, and perhaps VLDL) to get a realistic picture of how likely the cholesterol is to affect clogging up your arteries, and therefore possibly producing a stroke, heart attack, or something else. Apparantly the ratios between the various types has more effect than the total amount of cholesterol. Note that a significant percentage of a healthy brain is cholesterol, and therefore eliminating cholesterol entirely is not a very good idea (except in a few spammers and trolls). If that statin is giving you side effects, tell your new Drs. clinic about them and see if this makes them decide whether to switch to a different one or just eliminate it. Robert Miles >>>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>>> get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > them and see if this makes them decide whether to switch to a different > one or just eliminate it. I don't know if it's giving me side effects but two of the things I have been complaining of, memory loss and tiredness could be side effects. >>>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>>> get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Robert Miles Thank you Robert. Best post I've read so far in this thread. I get my lipids tested regularly. Not for the total, or just the LDL, but for the nitty gritties of the full breakdown and the ratios involved. >>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>> get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > But why? I've seen so much recently that says high cholesterol isn't > necessarily indicative of a heart attack. So why do we have it checked? Hi Julie, I just came back to this thread, but I think Kurt gave a good answer. I look at these tests as tools to evaluate my overhealth and to monitor changes. For example, my cholesterol level changed dramatically in response to the dietary changes I made after I was diagnosed with diabetes. If my BG, total cholesterol, etc., had moved in the other direction, then I would have been concerned that I might be moving in the "wrong" direction. MaryL >>>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>>> get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > direction, then I would have been concerned that I might be moving in the > "wrong" direction. Well, mine didn't really change much except that the triglycerides came down some. I do think cholesterol and thyroid are related and my thyroid is now in order. >>>>> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>>>> get my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > some. I do think cholesterol and thyroid are related and my thyroid is now > in order. You're exactly right Julie. People who have untreated hypothyroidism will often run an elevated cholesterol. Best regards, Michelle C., T2 >Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get my >cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. If I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >figure a way to get out of taking it. It was my former Dr. who insisted I >be on it. It it were up to him, I think everyone would be on it! Hi Julie, IMHO it is important to get cholesterol tested. It is one indicator of possible heart attack risk. There are others of course. CRP, C-reactive protein is another. So is triglyceride to HDL ratio. I would politely suggest you get all three done.That way you will be better informed and not flying blind as it were. Surely it is up to you whether or not you take a statin regardless of what the cholesterol test shows. Of course with all your allergies other things may be more important and it could be a matter of budgeting. Kind regards, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin >>Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get >>my [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > cholesterol test shows. Of course with all your allergies other > things may be more important and it could be a matter of budgeting. I don't want to take the statin because I see no reason to do so. My CRP is fine. The overall cholesterol is fine. The bad and the good are not quite in the right place but the statin didn't help that at all. Triglycerides were slightly high. >I don't want to take the statin because I see no reason to do so. My CRP is >fine. The overall cholesterol is fine. The bad and the good are not quite >in the right place but the statin didn't help that at all. Triglycerides >were slightly high. Hi Julie, There appears to be little reason for a woman who hasn't had a heart attack to be on statins. At one time it was suggested that T2 diabetics should regard themselves as having had a heart attack. Not certain that this reasoning is still regarded as valid. Glad you CRP is fine. That removes one valid reason for having a statin; reducing inflammation. If your triglycerides are high there are other ways of tackling them. I'm assuming you know this from the test performed last year. Here the tests are free for some and fairly minimal for others. Guess that isn't true elsewhere. You have to make your own choices. Taking statins and having one's cholesterol tested aren't synonymous of course. If you don't intend to take statins regardless of how high your LDL is there seems little point in testing your cholesterol profile. Statins are still the most effective way to lower cholesterol if that is really problematic. Kind regards, Best wishes, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin >>>Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get >>>my [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > quite in the right place but the statin didn't help that at all. > Triglycerides were slightly high. Isn't this a question you should raise with your doctor? Ask *why* he/she is prescribing statins and point out issues that you have raised on the newsgroup. There should be some accountability--that is, you deserved to be informed (and to make your own decisions). MaryL >>>>Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to >>>>get my [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > newsgroup. There should be some accountability--that is, you deserved to > be informed (and to make your own decisions). He prescribed it pretty much because my former GP strong armed him to do it. I refused to take it from the GP so he wrote him a note. >Isn't this a question you should raise with your doctor? Ask *why* he/she >is prescribing statins and point out issues that you have raised on the >newsgroup. There should be some accountability--that is, you deserved to be >informed (and to make your own decisions). > >MaryL G'day G'day MaryL, Well said. Great to see you posting again. Kind regards, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin >>Isn't this a question you should raise with your doctor? Ask *why* he/she >>is prescribing statins and point out issues that you have raised on the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Kind regards, Thanks. I have been *super busy,* so my online posting has been sporadic. I went to Greece (plus one day in Ephesus, Turkey) this spring, then up to Ohio to visit friends and relatives for a couple of weeks at the end of June, and now I am teaching again! I retired in August 2008, but the department chair asked if I would consider teaching some courses as an adjunct. I followed up on that and am teaching one course during Summer II. I'll have three courses for the fall semester, but they will be on a MWF schedule--so, I won't need to go to the office on Tuesdays or Thursdays, and "adjunct" means that I won't have responsibility for committee hearings, reports, etc. I can concentrate on teaching and students, which what I enjoy. MaryL >Thanks. I have been *super busy,* so my online posting has been sporadic. >I went to Greece (plus one day in Ephesus, Turkey) this spring, then up to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >MaryL It all sounds wonderful. A retirement with fringe benefits:-) If you need someone to act as a chauffer and bag-carrier on your next Spring odyssey, give me a call. >>Thanks. I have been *super busy,* so my online posting has been sporadic. >>I went to Greece (plus one day in Ephesus, Turkey) this spring, then up to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > If you need someone to act as a chauffer and bag-carrier on your next > Spring odyssey, give me a call. That sounds like a good idea. Of course, I hope you realize that you will have an unpaid position where I get all the perks and you get all the work. You also get to pay for all of your own expenses. :-) MaryL >>>Thanks. I have been *super busy,* so my online posting has been sporadic. >>>I went to Greece (plus one day in Ephesus, Turkey) this spring, then up to [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >MaryL The position is looking less attractive :-( But we could do swaps:-) I'll be wandering South America next March-May. Alone; SWMBO is "travelled out". But she's coming with me to New Caledonia next month:-) >Thanks. I have been *super busy,* so my online posting has been sporadic. >I went to Greece (plus one day in Ephesus, Turkey) this spring, then up to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >MaryL Hi Mary, Sounds as if you are doing what you enjoy most, teaching and having students. Way to go. Your holiday to Greece went well. Welcome back. SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin >Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get my >cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. If I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >figure a way to get out of taking it. It was my former Dr. who insisted I >be on it. It it were up to him, I think everyone would be on it! What were your results like last October? Was there cause for concern then? SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin >>Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get >>my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Was there cause for concern then? I don't remember the numbers and can't be bothered to look them up. Overall cholesterol was not at all high. Bad and good were not quite where they should be and triglycerides were slightly high. My former Dr. wanted to lower my bad cholesterol and that is why he put me on the statin. It didn't seem to help. > What were your results like last October? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >lower my bad cholesterol and that is why he put me on the statin. It didn't >seem to help. Could that be the result of choosing the wrong statin? What was your doctors response to the statin not working? Please forgive me being a bit puzzled by all this but if you KNOW the statin didn't work you must have had another cholesterol profile done since last October. Was enough time given between tests? Kind regards, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin >> What were your results like last October? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Could that be the result of choosing the wrong statin? > What was your doctors response to the statin not working? The way I understand it, a statin lowers cholesterol. And that it did! But is that a smart thing to do? The overall cholesterol wasn't HIGH! The only things not quite right were the good and bad. I always forget which is which. The one that was supposed to be low was a tiny bit too high and the one that is supposed to be low is a tiny bit too high. The triglycerides were a tiny bit too high. I don't think a statin lowers triglycerides. Does it? > Please forgive me being a bit puzzled by all this but if you KNOW the > statin didn't work you must have had another cholesterol profile done > since last October. Was enough time given between tests? I say it didn't work because it didn't put the HDL and LDL in range. As I didn't think it would. It did lower my overall cholesterol but it wasn't out of range to begin with. The reason my Dr. wanted me on a statin was because I have diabetes and he loves statins. He told me they protect the heart and if it were up to him, all people would be on them. I do not think these are valid reasons. > The way I understand it, a statin lowers cholesterol. And that it did! > But is that a smart thing to do? IMO, there is a major fad where lowering anything that might be harmful is the way to go. AFAIK, there is no definitive long term studies to support any of it. When I recently underwent an angiogram, I was asked to take part in a two year preventative statin trial, but I eventually declined as they were not too happy about answering my questions. Plus the fact that they only way they could tell if the drugs worked was to undergo another very risky examination. My 2c is that they are lumping everyone together and really do not know which diabetics it might work on and which is doesn't. SignatureGreat advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three days. >> The way I understand it, a statin lowers cholesterol. And that it did! >> But is that a smart thing to do? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > My 2c is that they are lumping everyone together and really do not know > which diabetics it might work on and which is doesn't. That's what I think too. > IMO, there is a major fad where lowering anything that might be harmful > is the way to go. AFAIK, there is no definitive long term studies to > support any of it. Studies clearly show that 500 is bad and 300 is not so bad. Therefore, zero must be excellent. NOT! SignatureWes Groleau Methods meddling by amateurs http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/WWW?itemid=889 >>> What were your results like last October? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >were a tiny bit too high. I don't think a statin lowers triglycerides. >Does it? Just drop statin lowers triglycerides iinto google and find the answer fast... http://www.uchsc.edu/sm/endo/brochures/lipid_clinic.pdf About 3/4 of the way down. Statins lower triglycerides by 10-35%. >> Please forgive me being a bit puzzled by all this but if you KNOW the >> statin didn't work you must have had another cholesterol profile done [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >heart and if it were up to him, all people would be on them. I do not think >these are valid reasons. >>> What were your results like last October? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > heart and if it were up to him, all people would be on them. I do not > think these are valid reasons. I just posted another message (before reading this far) in which I said that you should be raising these issues with your doctor. However, if your doctor really "loves statins" and says "if it were up to him, all people would be on them"--then I would run, not walk, to the nearest exit and start looking for another doctor. MaryL >>>> What were your results like last October? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > people would be on them"--then I would run, not walk, to the nearest exit > and start looking for another doctor. That one is no longer my Dr. >I don't remember the numbers and can't be bothered to look them up. Make the effort. Be bothered. >>I don't remember the numbers and can't be bothered to look them up. > > Make the effort. Be bothered. Why? Overall cholesterol wasn't out of range. Not even close. On 7/16/09 8:15 AM, in article h3nghe$9pm$1@news.eternal-september.org, >>> I don't remember the numbers and can't be bothered to look them up. >> >> Make the effort. Be bothered. > > Why? Overall cholesterol wasn't out of range. Not even close. How do you know that it still is in range? Our blood readings are not static. They change daily. Also, if you only had one test, how do you know that the readings were back in range. Don't forget the targets for diabetics have changed. SignatureMartha T2 Canada 1500mg. Metformin, 4mg. Avandia 50mcg. Synthroid, Advair, Singulair > On 7/16/09 8:15 AM, in article h3nghe$9pm$1@news.eternal-september.org, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > diabetics > have changed. I've had many tests. It was never high. And yes, I know the targets have changed. >Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get my >cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. If I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >figure a way to get out of taking it. It was my former Dr. who insisted I >be on it. It it were up to him, I think everyone would be on it! It seems to me that your question is in two parts: what is the point of cholesterol testing, and is there any point in my continuing with statins. You're right that there's a small body of opinion within the medical profession and close to it (e.g. Ravenskov, Kendrick, Enig, Taubes), that questions the whole idea of the diet - cholesterol - heart-disease theory. Their arguments are convincing, and I don't know of any closely argued case that refutes them. They may be right, but they may be wrong. A point that worries me slightly is that the argument applies to the general population, and that diabetics may be a special case. One can't deny the statistic that two-thirds of diabetics die from heart disease, and diabetics are prone to high cholesterol levels. That doesn't necessarily mean that the former is caused by the latter, but it might. Either way, there's no harm in keeping one's cholesterol at moderate levels, in line with current recommendations, and there may be significant risk at letting it go too high. A regular test just confirms that you're doing OK, or not, as the case may be. So if your cholesterol is OK and has been for some time and might be expected to remain that way, why take statins? IIRC there was a study published a year or so ago in the UK which showed that taking statins significantly reduced the risk of dying of heart disease for diabetics. It was much heralded by Diabetes UK, the UK diabetes charity who I suspect part-funded the research. See http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Newspublications/News/MRC004316 But statins are also known to reduce that risk in the general population, whether they have high cholesterol or not, so whether they work by reducing cholesterol is questionable, and whether diabetics showed a proportionately greater benefit, I don't know. But the result is there; statins do reduce deaths from heart disease, despite the mechanism being uncertain. SignatureChris T2 DX'd 2002, D&E, HbA1c 5.3,BMI 21 Lipids:Tot 4.5 HDL 1.6 LDL 2.7 Tri 0.6 E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net > they may be wrong. A point that worries me slightly is that the > argument applies to the general population, and that diabetics may be > a special case. One can't deny the statistic that two-thirds of > diabetics die from heart disease, and diabetics are prone to high > cholesterol levels. .... One can't deny it. But one can ask, "How many thirds of diabetics have poorly controlled FBG and A1c? And how many are still following the old-school advice on carb/protein/fat ratios?" SignatureWes Groleau World’s Strangest Laws http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1478 Julie, I have my cholesterol and other lipids taken every three months when I get my a1c done. I think it is very important to know what the numbers are to avoid clogging of the arteries. There may be things you are eating that are causing the high cholesterol or family genes, but being testing can be a step in controlling it. jmo Loretta -- I > Julie, I have my cholesterol and other lipids taken every three months > when I get my a1c done. I think it is very important to know what the > numbers are to avoid clogging of the arteries. There may be things you > are eating that are causing the high cholesterol or family genes, but > being testing can be a step in controlling it. I don't have high cholesterol. >I don't have high cholesterol. You do have high LDL and low HDL. This is the wrong way around. Statins would help by lowering the LDL and triglycerides. Assuming you don't intend to take statins or other medicines what choices are left. Raising HDL is the more difficult for many people. Giving up smoking is the most potent but I doubt that option is open to you. For some people increasing exercise such as hill climbing works. It didn't for me. The patterns are different for men and women. Women get a slower response but unlike men they don't plateau. The keep on improving so eventually end up better. Triglycerides and LDL usually respond rapidly to cutting back on carbohydrate. One quick strategy is to replace some with oleic acid ie the monounsaturated fatty acid found in olives, macadamias and avocados. This is like being a on low gi diet where the gi is zero. Look up the ultimate yuppy diet called the Hampton's diet. For some forthright comment read http://www.everydiet.org/diet/hamptons-diet For T2 diabetics it helps to replace grains at the base of the pyramid with high water content vegetables. Let pumpkin and cauliflower replace potato is good general advice but you will have to work out your own deal based on allergies and food intolerances. For the newly diagnosed who are following this thread in hopes of learning some general good advice. Cauliflower has a safety factor of five when replacing potato. For this reason it is often referred to as fauxtato, false potato. People have all manner of recipes for it and for combinations of potato and cauliflower. Pumpkin typically has a safety factor of three. It depends on variety. By safety factor I'm referring to the decreased likelihood of overdosing with carbohydrate. Oleic acid would have a safety factor of infinity for those who love to indulge in maths fantasy. Kind regards SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin >>I don't have high cholesterol. > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > overdosing with carbohydrate. Oleic acid would have a safety factor > of infinity for those who love to indulge in maths fantasy. Keep in mind that I have gastroparesis so I have to severely limit the vegetables I eat, particularly the high fiber kinds. I have also had thyroid problems so need to limit the goitrogenic foods like cauliflower. Alas, potatoes are one of the foods I *do* seem to be able to digest. Pumpkin is not something I can eat either. The texture is so bad I have to spit it right back out. > You do have high LDL and low HDL. This is the wrong way around. > Statins would help by lowering the LDL and triglycerides. I don't think statins help, at least not with a risk/benefit ratio worth taking. Pantethine lowers LDL and TGL and raises HDL in a different way; by making the body need less LDL because it enables the adrenals to more effectively manufacture the steroids that are made from LDL. Rising LDL is the body's way of responding to stressors that impede adrenal steroidogenesis, by supplying more raw material. Assuming you > don't intend to take statins or other medicines what choices are > left. Raising HDL is the more difficult for many people. Giving up [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > slower response but unlike men they don't plateau. The keep on > improving so eventually end up better. I never got any benefit from quitting smoking 14 years ago, in terms of lipids and bp, though I'm still glad I did it! I doubled my HDL within two weeks of switching to low carb, just over a decade ago, after a decade of it reading 34. It varies between 54 and my test last year, 76, my all time best yet. I found raising my HDL and lowering my TGLs to be the easiest and quickest results I've ever attained. Triglycerides and LDL usually > respond rapidly to cutting back on carbohydrate. One quick strategy > is to replace some with oleic acid ie the monounsaturated fatty acid > found in olives, macadamias and avocados. This is like being a on low > gi diet where the gi is zero. Look up the ultimate yuppy diet called > the Hampton's diet. Definitely TGL plummets quickly on low carb, and since TGLs are the most predictive lipid for CVD, that's wonderfully empowering, I think. LDL is often slower to respond, but HDL tends to rise as TGLs fall, from the studies I've read over time. Whether or not LDL decreases isn't as important, I think, as whether the particle distribution is away from small, dense VLDL and toward large, bouyant LDL. > For some forthright comment read > http://www.everydiet.org/diet/hamptons-diet [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > replace potato is good general advice but you will have to work out > your own deal based on allergies and food intolerances. As long as it's colorful and fibrous, it's a great base for a meal. And pretty on the plate! Susan >I don't think statins help, at least not with a risk/benefit ratio worth >taking. Pantethine lowers LDL and TGL and raises HDL in a different >way; by making the body need less LDL because it enables the adrenals to > more effectively manufacture the steroids that are made from LDL. >Rising LDL is the body's way of responding to stressors that impede >adrenal steroidogenesis, by supplying more raw material. Hi Susan, Does pantothenic acid work in a similar fashion to pantethine by raising HDL? My HDL has always been borderline despite exercise etc. Kind regards, SignatureQuentin Grady ^ ^ / New Zealand, >#,#< [ / \ /\ "... and the blind dog was leading." http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin > Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get my > cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. If I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > figure a way to get out of taking it. It was my former Dr. who insisted I > be on it. It it were up to him, I think everyone would be on it! If you are taking medicine to change your cholesterol, I would think monitoring its effectiveness would be important. If you would like to stop taking it, doesn't that make it that much more important? In either case, five years sounds like WAAY too long. SignatureWes Groleau Local Cheerleaders Make Newsweek http://Ideas.Lang-Learn.us/russell?itemid=1460 >> Just got a paper from my now new Drs. clinic telling me it is time to get >> my cholesterol tested and that it should be done every one to five years. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > In either case, five years sounds like WAAY too long. Dunno. Mainly I am questioning why we need to check it if lowering it isn't going to do us any good. And from all I've read recently, that's what they say. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.