High Cholesterol - any tips?
Options
Replies
-
All the diet and exercise advice is very good, OP. But, if genetics are a big player here you might still need statins.
I gave the example of my husband’s numbers. He is thin, commutes by bike on hilly roads about 11 months of the year and eats well at home. He doesn’t smoke or drink. Still has crappy cholesterol numbers. His dad died at 61 from a stroke due to a clot letting go following surgery to clear his arteries. His youngest brother is a rock climber and thin, non smoker & is already on statins. Don’t rule out statins along with a healthier lifestyle & diet.2 -
I am not a doctpr, but in line with the fibre and whole foods approach, my ex brought his extremely high cholesterol by having porridge oats (Oat meal) for breakfast every day.1
-
Genetics play a big role for some people and you may need to be on a station regardless of what you do.
OTOH, in most people your body actually produces most of the cholesterol in your body, it's not dietary cholesterol.
Eating far too many carbs will trigger your body to produce cholesterol. So for some people lowering carb intake will help lower cholesterol. Exercise helps too because it helps burn off cholesterol in the blood stream.before it can be lodged in unhealthy places.
So basically lower carbs, lose weight and exercise. Note I'm not advocating low carb or keto, just decreasing intake if intake is high.5 -
liftingbro wrote: »Genetics play a big role for some people and you may need to be on a station regardless of what you do.
OTOH, in most people your body actually produces most of the cholesterol in your body, it's not dietary cholesterol.
Eating far too many carbs will trigger your body to produce cholesterol. So for some people lowering carb intake will help lower cholesterol. Exercise helps too because it helps burn off cholesterol in the blood stream.before it can be lodged in unhealthy places.
So basically lower carbs, lose weight and exercise. Note I'm not advocating low carb or keto, just decreasing intake if intake is high.
I have familial hypercholesterolemia, and I eat plenty of carbs.
The bulk of my carb intake consists of vegetables, fruit, tubers, legumes, the carbs found in low fat dairy, and whole grains. And yup, I like some treats now and then.
I think carb quality, when it brings fiber along for the ride, matters far more when it comes to cholesterol, than carb quantity.3 -
Thank you so much for all the responses. My cholesterol problem is because of my diet. I have a good 50 lbs to lose. I did try the ketogenic diet for a couple months. I'm sure I was doing it wrong. I really believe that has a lot to do with the jump in cholesterol levels. I just want to get back to tracking, having the flexibility of different types of foods. I need to be mindful of certain fats that I need to avoid and limit carbs. Going to get exercise in 5 days as well. You all have really encouraged me. I love reading about how others dropped thier cholesterol levels. Thanks for all the tips :-)2
-
My cholesterol went down when I started eating some ghee(homemade) and not being scared of other fats like olive oil, duck fat and butter. Before that I was using almost no fats so now I'll keep doing this since it's working for now.1
-
One of the things that helped me more than anything was exercise. I can't change my diet too much due to a host of digestive issues. But I started walking a ton. I walk or bike everywhere I can and just do some bodyweight exercises. My cholesterol is still in the high range, but that got my ratio of good/bad to the "excellent" category per my doctor. So she isn't concerned about the overall level.
Absolutely, I was always able to know ahead of time if my cholesterol was going to be high or good, whether I had been exercising or not, If I was working out it would be good, if I wasn't it would be high- without fail.1 -
I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
These do help, When I stopped exercising regularly, I was put on something, my cholesterol dropped quite a bit0 -
I agree about genetics playing a role and hormones levels... I’m trying to reduce cholesterol as well and a little weight, not by much. I stopped eating cheese and most saturated fats, I use some olive oil, I eat mostly plants, a little chicken and fish, really focusing on 80% low fat vegetarian diet. I’ll be seeing the blood results in a couple of months, but so far the weight has been going down by 1 lb a week for about 7 weeks straight, yay. Find your TDEE, there are lots of calculators online, then reduce it by 300-500 calories a day. Done!1
-
livenfree45 wrote: »I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
These do help, When I stopped exercising regularly, I was put on something, my cholesterol dropped quite a bit
By not helping women, I meant they do not seem to help reduce CVD or lower mortality. They may lower cholesterol but i have seem no evidence that they help women, especially post menopausal women.
Statins do appear to help middle aged men, who have already suffered a heart attack, to live longer though.
1 -
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you provided, you'll see they do very little. It says there is something like a 27% reduction in events but your chance of having a heart attack each year is something like 2-5% depending on age. 27% of 2-5% puts your risk at something like 2.5 - 6.3%. Not much, especially when you factor in the serious side effects some get.
Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.0 -
After many years on Pravastatin, in 2015 I switched to the following:
- instead of dairy milk, I use almond milk or coconut milk or cashew milk, etc
- instead of meat of any color/kind, I eat mostly fish mostly baked never fried. Now and then baked chicken
- occasionally at my mom's I'd have pork, beef or chicken
- olive oil instead of butter/margerine
That's really all I did for my lipid panel/cholesterol and my numbers have remained just as good and stable as if I'd been still taking Pravastatin.
I hope you find this useful.
Regards,
habrownnyc2 -
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.4 -
They do, no matter how many times you repeat this, it's still not true.livenfree45 wrote: »I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
These do help, When I stopped exercising regularly, I was put on something, my cholesterol dropped quite a bit
By not helping women, I meant they do not seem to help reduce CVD or lower mortality.
You mean you ignore the evidence that it helps women. But let's be real, you have never looked for such evidence, your happy to just regurgitate what's spoonfed to you on your favorite keto propaganda websites.They may lower cholesterol but i have seem no evidence that they help women, especially post menopausal women.
3 -
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.
You seem very emotionally invested in justifying statin use...
The links you shared do not show much effectiveness. Sort of like the statistic from a year or so ago showing that eating processed meats raises your risk of cancer 20%... from 5 to 6%. That's not much of a difference. Likewise, statins don't do much for most people. Men who already have CVD have a small chance of benefiting. Women? It's smaller.
Diet and exercise are much much more effective at lowering CVD risk.
This is an easy and simplistic look at the stats:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/
This is a longer discussion, well, a book. Page 115 starts getting into statins.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CM.pdf
And yes, these are both biased away from statins. You are balancing that out with quotes in favor of statins. People can make up their own minds by educating themselves.
They do, no matter how many times you repeat this, it's still not true.livenfree45 wrote: »I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
These do help, When I stopped exercising regularly, I was put on something, my cholesterol dropped quite a bit
By not helping women, I meant they do not seem to help reduce CVD or lower mortality.
You mean you ignore the evidence that it helps women. But let's be real, you have never looked for such evidence, your happy to just regurgitate what's spoonfed to you on your favorite keto propaganda websites.They may lower cholesterol but i have seem no evidence that they help women, especially post menopausal women.
I've read a fair bit on this topic. Jibes don't change that.
I have my opinion based on the facts. You have a different take on those same stats. You can take the statins if you wish. Me? I'd skip them unless I had a really good reason to take them, and not just because cholesterol is a bit high.0 -
Nope, just dispelling your misinformation.
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.
You seem very emotionally invested in justifying statin use...The links you shared do not show much effectiveness.
True, the effect may be small, but they are effective. Which is much different from you original baseless assertion that "they don't seem to help women at all"Likewise, statins don't do much for most people. Men who already have CVD have a small chance of benefiting. Women? It's smaller.
Ahh, herein lies your problem. Chris Kresser is a quack, about as far removed from science as you can get, up there with Oz, Mercola and Food Babe. He's a acupuncturist, that right there is red flag numero uno. He also claims to be an expert in Functional and Integrative medicine, which is quackery. He also believes in Leaky Gut. The fact you would link to him says a lot about your inability to separate fact from fiction and science from pseudoscience.This is an easy and simplistic look at the stats:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/
Oh great, first trying to explain statins with a link to a known quack and now a completely on sided cherry picked book. Do you actually have any misinterpreted research you can post?This is a longer discussion, well, a book. Page 115 starts getting into statins.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CM.pdf
Let's see, you link to a quack and a book, both fundamentally misleading. I link to research.And yes, these are both biased away from statins. You are balancing that out with quotes in favor of statins.
Again another one of your problems. You think a weekend of Google U and few reads of some one sided books accounts for research and makes you an expert, it doesn't. Its called confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger, you are a prime example of both. You do realize its a very complex topic, missing from the side of the quacks is nuance and understanding.People can make up their own minds by educating themselves.
3 -
Nope, just dispelling your misinformation.
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.
You seem very emotionally invested in justifying statin use...The links you shared do not show much effectiveness.
True, the effect may be small, but they are effective. Which is much different from you original baseless assertion that "they don't seem to help women at all"Likewise, statins don't do much for most people. Men who already have CVD have a small chance of benefiting. Women? It's smaller.
Ahh, herein lies your problem. Chris Kresser is a quack, about as far removed from science as you can get, up there with Oz, Mercola and Food Babe. He's a acupuncturist, that right there is red flag numero uno. He also claims to be an expert in Functional and Integrative medicine, which is quackery. He also believes in Leaky Gut. The fact you would link to him says a lot about your inability to separate fact from fiction and science from pseudoscience.This is an easy and simplistic look at the stats:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/
Oh great, first trying to explain statins with a link to a known quack and now a completely on sided cherry picked book. Do you actually have any misinterpreted research you can post?This is a longer discussion, well, a book. Page 115 starts getting into statins.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CM.pdf
Let's see, you link to a quack and a book, both fundamentally misleading. I link to research.And yes, these are both biased away from statins. You are balancing that out with quotes in favor of statins.
Again another one of your problems. You think a weekend of Google U and few reads of some one sided books accounts for research and makes you an expert, it doesn't. Its called confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger, you are a prime example of both. You do realize its a very complex topic, missing from the side of the quacks is nuance and understanding.People can make up their own minds by educating themselves.
Your arguments are getting to be about word choices (For example, I consider a 0.50% in CVD reduction to be not much at all) and seem snarky so I'll bow out now. You appear to have your mind made up and are not interested in opposing viewpoints. Good luck with your health care choices.1 -
Nope, just dispelling your misinformation.
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.
You seem very emotionally invested in justifying statin use...The links you shared do not show much effectiveness.
True, the effect may be small, but they are effective. Which is much different from you original baseless assertion that "they don't seem to help women at all"Likewise, statins don't do much for most people. Men who already have CVD have a small chance of benefiting. Women? It's smaller.
Ahh, herein lies your problem. Chris Kresser is a quack, about as far removed from science as you can get, up there with Oz, Mercola and Food Babe. He's a acupuncturist, that right there is red flag numero uno. He also claims to be an expert in Functional and Integrative medicine, which is quackery. He also believes in Leaky Gut. The fact you would link to him says a lot about your inability to separate fact from fiction and science from pseudoscience.This is an easy and simplistic look at the stats:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/
Oh great, first trying to explain statins with a link to a known quack and now a completely on sided cherry picked book. Do you actually have any misinterpreted research you can post?This is a longer discussion, well, a book. Page 115 starts getting into statins.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CM.pdf
Let's see, you link to a quack and a book, both fundamentally misleading. I link to research.And yes, these are both biased away from statins. You are balancing that out with quotes in favor of statins.
Again another one of your problems. You think a weekend of Google U and few reads of some one sided books accounts for research and makes you an expert, it doesn't. Its called confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger, you are a prime example of both. You do realize its a very complex topic, missing from the side of the quacks is nuance and understanding.People can make up their own minds by educating themselves.
Your arguments are getting to be about word choices (For example, I consider a 0.50% in CVD reduction to be not much at all) and seem snarky so I'll bow out now. You appear to have your mind made up and are not interested in opposing viewpoints. Good luck with your health care choices.
There are viewpoints and there are facts. Some do not understand the difference. My viewpoint will never change unless there is solid science to justify a different stance.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions