Blood work
Options
Replies
-
KnitOrMiss wrote: »Yeah, my total was 241, trigs 76, hdl 50, ldl was 176 calculated (158 with the iranian method), but if I set the ldl at 158, it changes my trigs to 160, which apparently makes everything normal, but with my trigs at 76, then I'm high risk in several categories. I've had the sizes checked 6 months ago, and all those risks were high/bad, too, but from what I recall of the discussions and research I could do (can't get Cholesterol Clarity where I am), during active weight loss, those total and LDL numbers don't mean as much...
Decided I'm not going to worry unless I had other symptoms. All other stats improved!
I used the first one, and it erased my real trig number of 59 and calculated it at 102! So then I used the one at the link he has above, and got "ideal" (phew).
edited to add: these numbers are from May 2015. I have been eating LCHF since May 2013. Lost 11kg.0 -
People are concerned about the side-effects of statins. And they're also concerned that they're treating the wrong thing.
The science supporting pushing LDL down below 70, or even below 100, isn't very strong.
FWIW, my doc recommended statins to me even though my cholesterol wasn't high. It's now a standard recommendation even if you have other risk factors. In my case, it was metabolic syndrome. All my risk markers went to normal after a few months of low carb.
What were the other risk factors?
0 -
As a practicing physician I would offer any DM2 pt with a calculated LDL > 70 a statin. If I didn't, I could be liable for malpractice. Why not a statin? Consider it cheap insurance.
You ought to be interested in this:
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i
and this:
and this:
http://drhyman.com/blog/2010/05/19/why-cholesterol-may-not-be-the-cause-of-heart-disease/
Others have already pointed out the reasons for why not statins. Frankly, the fact that you're so willing to prescribe any medication based on one number in isolation -- which has already proven to be a poor predictor of heart disease risk -- and disregarding the others, when those better predictive numbers say it's not necessary, without further tests to verify your concerns is what's most concerning to me and illustrates everything that's wrong with our current healthcare industry. The fact that you're willing to prescribe the medication, because it's favorable to risking a malpractice suit just compounds the issue, in part because it illustrates just how ruled by fear the industry is.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »People are concerned about the side-effects of statins. And they're also concerned that they're treating the wrong thing.
The science supporting pushing LDL down below 70, or even below 100, isn't very strong.
FWIW, my doc recommended statins to me even though my cholesterol wasn't high. It's now a standard recommendation even if you have other risk factors. In my case, it was metabolic syndrome. All my risk markers went to normal after a few months of low carb.
What were the other risk factors?
They now look at your 10-year heart disease risk. If it's above a certain threshold (8%?), they recommend statins.
The information required to estimate ASCVD risk includes age, sex, race, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, blood pressure lowering medication use, diabetes status, and smoking status.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cholesterol-guidelines-update-controversy-over-heart-risk-calculator-2013111968860 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »People are concerned about the side-effects of statins. And they're also concerned that they're treating the wrong thing.
The science supporting pushing LDL down below 70, or even below 100, isn't very strong.
FWIW, my doc recommended statins to me even though my cholesterol wasn't high. It's now a standard recommendation even if you have other risk factors. In my case, it was metabolic syndrome. All my risk markers went to normal after a few months of low carb.
What were the other risk factors?
They now look at your 10-year heart disease risk. If it's above a certain threshold (8%?), they recommend statins.
The information required to estimate ASCVD risk includes age, sex, race, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, blood pressure lowering medication use, diabetes status, and smoking status.
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/cholesterol-guidelines-update-controversy-over-heart-risk-calculator-201311196886
Did the blog say >191 for LDL? Did I read this correctly? Thank you for the link.
0 -
Yeah, LDL>190 is the cut-off for "very high," and statins aren't very controversial at that level. They don't even bother using the risk calculator for those levels.
0 -
The Harvard link has (I think) 4 different criteria one was diabetic and LDL above >70 I think. IDK, interesting to read and Attia's talk by Dragon Wolf I'll keep going back to; the link for Dr Hyman takes it too far for me(the whole it is the sugar) gets me a little batty. Good links by folks in this thread. Next month I'm hoping to start seeing a Cardio group to discuss preventative measures and on going research. I'd rather prevent the CVD as opposed to going once an event occurs. IDK proactive instead of reactive in my head seems to work.0
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Next month I'm hoping to start seeing a Cardio group to discuss preventative measures and on going research. I'd rather prevent the CVD as opposed to going once an event occurs. IDK proactive instead of reactive in my head seems to work.
Let us know what they say. Most of medicine is geared towards fixing what breaks rather than prevention.
You can play "what if" with the risk calculator. Since age is a risk factor, it's pretty much impossible for me to get my 10-year risk below 3%, but diet and exercise can get me pretty close.
http://tools.acc.org/ASCVD-Risk-Estimator/
0 -
I don't believe the good doctor is coming back! My father is type 2 diabetic and has struggled with trying to keep his blood sugar under 150 (fasting) for a long time. He also takes statins, suffering the muscle pain that can be a side effect. He stopped the statins and his fasting blood sugars have been in the 70s and 80s! THAT IS REAL!!! "Good doctor" could really help some people if he wanted to! Big Pharma, big insurance be dam~€©¡¡.0
-
You can play "what if" with the risk calculator. Since age is a risk factor, it's pretty much impossible for me to get my 10-year risk below 3%, but diet and exercise can get me pretty close.
http://tools.acc.org/ASCVD-Risk-Estimator/
Thanks for the link, I can rest assured now, even at my age, as long as I keep on ketoing on:
Based on the data entered (assuming no clinical ASCVD and LDL-C 70-189 mg/dL):
Gender: Female
Age: 58
Race: White/Other
Total Cholesterol: 221
HDL-Cholesterol: 87
Systolic Blood Pressure: 120
Hypertension Treatment: No
Diabetes: No
Smoker: No
Not In Statin Benefit Group Due To 10-Year ASCVD Risk <5%0 -
I don't believe the good doctor is coming back! My father is type 2 diabetic and has struggled with trying to keep his blood sugar under 150 (fasting) for a long time. He also takes statins, suffering the muscle pain that can be a side effect. He stopped the statins and his fasting blood sugars have been in the 70s and 80s! THAT IS REAL!!! "Good doctor" could really help some people if he wanted to! Big Pharma, big insurance be dam~€©¡¡.
That makes me really sad. The idea of another doctor willing to go against the grain a bit to guide and empower patients to achieve better health and not just pop another pill washed down with their soda or "healthy" juice is exciting.
Bubble burst....0 -
When one is in great health with great HDL and triglycerides levels total cholesterol can float where it may based on my research and personal view.0
-
He's doing what most do, sticking his head in the sand and ignoring the results in front of him! Typical. More worried about malpractice lawsuits than his patients apparently, sorry "good doctor" if you return! Those of us in the medical profession are supposed to help people. Inform yourself!0
-
Let's not jump to conclusions. Even he said he's seen the failure of following the recommended "good" advice with his own medical experience. This is a whole lot of new information to assess and digest. It could be that he's giving it a fair investigation and looking into it for himself. We can't expect someone to just flip to the exact opposite position just because a bunch of people on the internet say so.
If anything, he needs to consider it for his own health first.0 -
As I ended with he needs to "Inform himself". Believe me, I know physicians are technically the "middle man". Their regulations and guides they have to follow are amazing! The insurance companies, and now government, have taken true autonomous patient care out of their hands. I hope he is choosing to educate himself more on this topic so his patients may possibly benefit. I came across harsh, and I apologize for that. It's a exciting to see a physician actually asking questions about this woe and " pouncing" is hard to control. I truly hope he is watching!
Thank you @Fit_Goat! 0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »When one is in great health with great HDL and triglycerides levels total cholesterol can float where it may based on my research and personal view.
I only find ranges when I look for these numbers. What are "great" numbers considered to be?
Trigs - 76
HDL - 50 (why is 60 the upper range here? I thought the more HDL we had the better??)
Ugh, cholesterol is so complicated!
And yes, because of the ratio between those two, I wasn't as worried about my total cholesterol or LDL levels...0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »When one is in great health with great HDL and triglycerides levels total cholesterol can float where it may based on my research and personal view.
I only find ranges when I look for these numbers. What are "great" numbers considered to be?
Trigs - 76
HDL - 50 (why is 60 the upper range here? I thought the more HDL we had the better??)
Ugh, cholesterol is so complicated!
And yes, because of the ratio between those two, I wasn't as worried about my total cholesterol or LDL levels...
There is a limit where too much HDL is still too much, but I think it's actually like 100+, 60 is a decent buffer and one of those "most people won't hit that" things, I think. I could be mistaken, though.
On another note, you all might be interested in following Dr. Eric Topol. He's been working on disrupting the current status quo of medicine from the inside and believes the future of medicine will be more patient centric, which is cool. He's still got some conventional mindsets, but what he's doing is still really cool.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/books/review/the-patient-will-see-you-now-by-eric-topol.html0 -
And now the politics comes in. :-/
But turnabout is fair play.
These kind of forums are not terribly friendly to the 'overall' medical profession, and would be places "where angels fear to tread'.
It would take considerable cajoness to identify yourself as a doctor or nutritionist on these forums.
Apologies sir, for any conclusion jumping and tar and feathering. This bunch has had a pretty tough rodeo with our health, and getting one's life back makes for strong opinions.0
