Printable View
I had 2 beers before I fasted for 12 hours. My cholesterol was 244, with my LDL and triglycerides very elevated. I knew it wasn't correct and I went back and re-tested and by some amazing feat, my cholesterol had dropped to 172. Just keep that in mind as well, they usually don't tell you about that before or after the tests.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1
Also: put the following two articles together and get the hypothesis that polyunsaturated fat (found in vegetable oils, most particularly corn and soybean) can induce a temporary state of low effective thyroid. Cut down the fried foods and peanut butter.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Abstract
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2277.htm
Got my numbers this morning:
Cholesterol = 189
Triglyceride = 181
HDL = 49
LDL calculated = 104
The lab slip is kind enough to tell me that these are all within normal range as set by one boundary (<239, <199, >40, <129), but don't tell me what the other end of the normal range is. So I have no basis to know whether I'm just squeaking under the warning range or good to go. Badly-designed lab slip, imho.
ldl <100 is "optimal" so you're really close to optimal.
The lab slip is supposed to give you poor info so that you need a Dr. to interpret it for you.
New custom user title!Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
Thanks.
I like your lab target numbers a lot better than mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by alpinedad
What really bugs me about the numbers is knowing what the target is. My doc used to say 240 was borderline, then 220, then 200, now 180. My latest was:
Total = 173, <180 okay
Hdl = 40, =40 okay
ldl = 101, > 100, borderline
Tri's = 158 > 150, high
The drug companies, through 'studies' keep changing the target. The lower the target, the more potential patients. I really question the sense of taking the tests when the answers are so nebulous.
Fug it! Ben and Jerry's anyone?
The consistency of my results is another thing. HDL+LDL varying from 310 to 208?Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldMember
I smell a well financed rat.
I don't think it's as easy as adding the two numbers together. I think there are other factors (MDL's?) that play into the total. The two (HDL+LDL) have never totaled to the total on my tests. "I'm no doctor but I play one on TV.." so I don't know how the lab rats calculate any of this. What I know though is that on one hand, my GP says that some 50 yr. olds are physically about 70 and some are physically about 35 and that I'm fortunate to be one of the latter. My cardiologist friend though keeps trying to tell me I'm going to die tomorrow if I don't hit those ridiculously lowering target numbers. I like my GP better :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
It is that easy if one defines it that way. If I have transgressed some divine protectorate of the Holy Naming Convention, then fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldMember
So, let HDL+LDL be defined to be the Wadsome Pinduxtter Summation Index.
My Wadsome Pinduxtter Summation Index has vacillated along a gaussian distribution integrated over a sheaf of wavelets from 310 to 208 and now 274.
Does that clarify things?
Perfectly.
so........my results (first ever)...
Cholesterol =197
HDL = 34
LDL = 112
Triglycerides = 289 :eek:
I do believe that I'm at risk of genetic high triglycerides, given that my stupid dad and bitchass aunt are on lipitor
going in tomorrow, they are going to run another blood test that takes 2 weeks to get results from, then we talk therapies.......
tell them the protocol you want to control your high tri's is:
bi weekely hot-nurse-stroke-off-or-hummer. I hear it's really popular.
I just had mine tested for the first time ever a couple weeks ago, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tap
total = 182
HDL = 80
Triglycerides = 63
I guess something will kill me, but looks like it's (probably) not going to be heart diease.
Speaking as someone who works in drug discovery and development I want to make a point that drives me up the wall. It's not specific to cholesterol or any other drug treatment.
Caffeine is a drug. Lipitor is also a drug. I understand how it's easy to say, "Oh but one is natural and comes from the ground" and blah blah blah and "One is synthetic and man made and dangerous" and blah blah blah.
Caffeine has just as many side effects as lipitor, without the benefit of physician oversight. Caffeine can cause hypertension, sleep disorders, irregular/rapid heart beat, nervousness, involuntary muscle twitching, headaches, and respirtory problems, just off the top of my head.
Just beacuse something is marketed by big bad evil pharma companies, doesn't mean it's any less safe than the herbal supplements, naturpathic remedies, or other chemicals you may be ingesting on a day to day basis.
Next time you want to make a case for something natural being a-ok to ingest, keep in mind that psychadelic mushrooms come straight from the ground, and are decidedly more dangerous than advil.
As a parting shot, look at these two pictures. One is caffeine and one is lipitor. You can probably guess which is which, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter where it comes from, a molecule is a molecule, some are natural and some are synthetic, neither of which are guaranteed to be safe.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ffeine.svg.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...px-Lipitor.png
Yeah, mine don't add up like that either:Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldMember
Cholesterol = 171
HDL = 68
LDL = 91
Triglycerides = 60
Cholesterol Ratio (?) = 2.5%
And my total cholesterol has always been close to the same. I remember it being 167 like 10 years ago, then 174 at one point, now 171. And this test was monday morning after our trip to Big Sky where I ate bacon cheeseburgers and drank tons of beer all weekend. That seems bizarre to get wildly varying numbers. I'd definitely get re-tested and talk to a few more doctors/experts before going on medication when it's jumping around like that.
Here's mine.
Total = 148
HDL = 37
LDL = 89
TRI = 155
homocystine= 26
The last one hasn't been mentioned by anyone, but mine is off the charts and there is no drug for it. BTW, I'm on Vytorin - which is a little different than the others. It brought my total cholesterol down about 70 points. I'm super high family risk. I've changed my diet, but not eliminated my fatty faves, just pared them down to once a week treats rather than regular staples.
I also take Fish oil, folic acid, b-12 and baby aspirin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Huh, homocystine isn't listed on my lab report.
I am compelled to pipe in here since reducing cholesterol has been my professional specialty for a decade-and-a-half. I sold drugs for 23 years. 15 of those years I sold various statin drugs. I've also sold (at the same time) natural health supplements for more than 11 years. I obviously didn't personally have a problem with a conflict of interest simultaneously selling both since I wholeheartedly believe in trying to do whatever possible naturally before resorting to a drug which causes side effects and potential complications.
Everyone now knows that with umpteen different statin drugs out there, it IS usually possible to find a prescription drug that will help lower your cholesterol. However, what if you don't want to take a drug? What if you're applying for health or life insurance and you can't take a chance of being denied or premium-rated? What if you're a pilot, machine operator, or trying to get a job where they require regular physicals and you can't be on a cholesterol lowering drug?
Believe it or not, you CAN be denied a job because of low HDL, high cholesterol, too high a cardiac risk ratio, high blood pressure, or elevated blood sugars--all of which can be dramatically improved without drugs. I know because over the years I've had countless people write and thank me for helping them lower their numbers without it showing up on medical records. It can be done. Easily.
Google 'multiple fibers and plant sterols' and see what pops up first--waiorafiber. Never heard of it? Take a good look at what doctors are SUPPOSED to be doing first-line for their patients with high cholesterol: plant fibers and sterols/stanols for 6 months! Most are too lazy or too brainwashed by the drug companies to do it, but it's there in the medical journals for all to see.
Remember the century-old Rexall company? Their researchers brought the 'multiple fiber' part of the equation to market in 1989 and then Superior Blend (made by many of the same Rexall scientists, by the way) improved upon that with sterols/stanols when the updated guidelines came out in 2002. Obviously, you can go out and buy the 5, 6, or 7 different fiber types necessary to try and get the desired effect. And, you can find a supplier for the 1600 mg of plant sterols per day on top of that, but you'll end up spending more than if you had just bought a combo supplement with all of those ingredients in it.
Believe me, some of the most rewarding experiences of my life have been hearing and reading success stories from people who call or write me after getting their levels back under control.
I've been on this board for several years now without ever mentioning what I really do for a living, but this is important folks. Don't live with out-of-balance lipid levels when it's so easy and safe to correct.
Four very simple things to lower cholesterol without drugs:
*6-10 grams per day of multiple SOLUBLE fibers (not the insoluble fiber from cereals, grains, fruits, and vegetables) Total daily soluble and insoluble fiber should be 25-35g
*1600mg/ day plant sterols (which convert to stanols in the body)
*2000-3000mg per day of mercury-filtered fish oil
*a few hundred mgs of niacin if you can stand it (the flushing that is)
If anyone wants more info on this you can em me at endless.............skistreak........com. Please don't PM as my box fills up too quickly.
Thanks Endless. BTW, if you take any Statin, DO NOT TAKE NIACIN.
AG - homocystine, from what I hear, is a measure of crap in your arteries. It's important and often overlooked.
PTAVV- we haven't gone at it for a while, but this is such a myopic scientist world view. Of course there's a difference between what occurs in nature and what is a man made compound. Even if to the Vulcan-logic minded all is the same, add in a dose of philosophical or even spiritual thought and you realize that what nature creates happens to address a need, fill a vacuum. what man creates never has had the chance grow in nature, and therefore is untested and will have flaws. even if we don't know em.Quote:
You can probably guess which is which, but when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter where it comes from, a molecule is a molecule, some are natural and some are synthetic, neither of which are guaranteed to be safe.
Spider venom is natural. Snake venom is natural. Hemlock is natural. Pennyroyal is natural.
Something being natural doesn't imbue it with any real, philosophical, or spiritual attributes that make it safe, more acceptable, or any less influential on your body. What it does make them is generally less researched, controlled, and understood.
The only benefit to "natural supplements" as opposed to perscription medication is as Endless pointed out (insurance investigations and job criteria).
It's not a myopic scientist view, it's a realist's view. The bullshit that gets spread about how safe and awesome "natural" supplements are when compared to pharmaceutical drugs is astounding, but please keep furthing the uneducated view that you're espousing.
What needs to heroin and cocaine fill? They're both derived from plants right out of the ground. How about hemlock and pennyroyal, they're just plants... so they should be safe to ingest right? Or the dozens of poisonus berries that are found the world over.Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Get off your hippy horse and get a grip on reality. A drug is nothing but a particular combination of atoms strung together into a molecule, whether it's built by proteins in a plant or reactions in a flask, it's still a drug.
Yes, there are good and bad natural drugs, but they have each evolved to serve a purpose in the ecosystem. If humans hadn't gone off the deep end we would still know which to apply in which situation, but we have as a collective forgotten all that.
coca leaves have been used for medicinal purposes. same with heroin (morphine). I'm not advocating against all man-made drugs, I'm just saying that they are definitely not created equal. You can look at their molecular structure, but that misses the forest for the trees.
Cholesterol ratio would be the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL. Yours would be 2.5, not 2.5%. Obviously a lower number is better. This is probably a better measure than total cholesterol since the "good" HDL contributes to a high total number.Quote:
Originally Posted by altagirl
Evolution puts no pressure on plants to evolve usefulness to other species. In fact, quite the opposite is contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
If you really want to keep espousing this Earth-mother hippy stuff, you really ought to at least get your phrases right. Evolution puts pressure on plants to evolve away from the usefulness you're talking about, because this usefulness for the plant involves being eaten or otherwise destroyed so that an animal can utilize it.
Here's the easiest way to illustrate my point. Which of these is natural, and which is man made?
1: http://www.vanillawinter.com/drugs/1.jpg
2: http://www.vanillawinter.com/drugs/2.jpg
Furthermore, which one has more side effects? Which one is more dangerous? Which one is easier to overdose on?
Finally, this claim that plants and whatnot have evolved usefulness is the height of species arrogance. By which I mean, if that plant has evolved a particular type of berry so that it attracts animals which will spread its seeds or spores or whatever, that same compound that attracts a deer could easily kill humans. Tylenol killed dogs in mammalian trials, yet it's one of the most widely prescribed medications for humans because it's so safe. Point being, even if there was some imaginary evolutionary pressure on plants to evolve usefulness (there isn't) there's no reason for them to evolve usefulness to humans (the contrary is true).
PTav was/is doing a great job of countering here... but I had to add a comment. Your point about the structure? Huh? No... that's the point. It's the structure of these molecules that define their properties... that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stupendous man
Nature did not intend these "natural" molecules to be used as medicines. Furthermore, while some of these are actually used as therapy... they all have side effects... there are no silver bullets.
We actually use natural products as one source of lead matter in our drug discovery efforts... however, these starting points usually have to be modified considerably to be suitable for use in humans.
-your friendly "Vulcan-logic minded" scientist