Blood test Update

  A few days ago I suggested I was going to go 24 hours without food to see if that played with the results.  I screwed up and went 16 hours instead. oh well...

Colesterol...

Total dropped by 3mm/dl.
Was 147, Now 144

LDL dropped by 3
Was 93, Now 90

HDL raised by 2
Was 27, Now 29

  We decided to up my fish oil pills by one pill more a day, Switching from Simvastatin 20mg to Crestor 20mg, and to exorcise more to improve my numbers.

[ed34]

exercise? whats that? lol

Your LDL is W A Y  low, the UK recommendation is around 150 because nobody knows how much cholesterol the body requires to function properly. At 90, yours is very low.
Your HDL I have to admit is low. Here we prefer a minimum of 38 but with such low LDL does it matter?
I often wonder how far Doctors want you to go.

[kenkeith]

QUOTE: "Your LDL is W A Y  low, the UK recommendation is around 150 because nobody knows how much cholesterol the body requires to function properly. At 90, yours is very low".

>>>>>Has there been a change?  My LDL is 45 and tables indicates a level less than 100 is recommended.  

My chol was 114 and the recommended level is less than 200.  

The cardiologist stated the numbers were very good. What reference table or documentation that supports your statements?  I have been taking statins to lower the lipid levels, but my levels have never been very high, and I am thinking of going off statins even though I don't have any side effects that I know about.

[erijon]

The AHA and NIH recommends an LDL of less than 70 for individuals with known heart disease, that has not changed. They also recommend a total cholesterol of less than 170 for the same individuals along with an HDL greater than 40. Again, nothing new.

[ed34]

">>>>>Has there been a change?  My LDL is 45 and tables indicates a level less than 100 is recommended.   "

Not a very specific recommendation  is it? My point is, what is the minimum level, is there one? Surely there has to be a level where cholesterol becomes too short in supply for the body?

[kenkeith]

Mayo Clinic, 12-10-2010

"A high blood cholesterol level increases your risk of coronary artery disease. Lower cholesterol is usually better, but in rare cases, having a low level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad") cholesterol or a low total cholesterol level could increase your risk of some health problems. Doctors are still trying to find out more about the connection between low cholesterol and health risks".

QUOTE: Your LDL is W A Y  low, the UK recommendation is around 150.

>>>> I provided a source for <100 for healthy level and you say 150 is recommended by UK and 90 and 45 is too low.  So it seems you are saying increase LDL to 150?!

[ed34]

With the case of RadioAstronomyObserver, has his disease stopped growing with his cholesterol so low? If it has, WHY would you want it even lower? If it has not, then why bother pushing numbers lower when it's obvious it isn't the cause. I think Doctors play a dangerous game pushing numbers down and down when they have no idea what the bottom limit is, and have no idea what will go wrong. Perhaps they will be satisfied when the permanent bonds between memory cells in the brain collapse.

[kenkeith]

Your assessment of one report without further evidence shouldn't mean the LDL be raised to 150!  That is the essence of my question...you seem to be generalizing an unknown and unsubstantiated worth, and to go from there to a lipid value that has some validity for risk of CAD. Doesn't make sense. However, your comments are of interest, but to suggest someone raise their LDL may not be a cool idea.

Granted medical treatments evolve, but there is no proof doctors continue a relentless campaign to continue lowering a known positve value without some justification.

[RadioAstronomyObserver]

You both have a great bed side manor and this discussion is wonderful.  My take on this, because I feel ~wrong, my LDL is too high to HDL.  The LDL I believe is a touch too high though I reserve the right to change my mind should my HDL climb some. And the Overall is just about right.

[RadioAstronomyObserver]

You both have a great bed side manor and this discussion is wonderful.  My take on this, because I feel ~wrong, my LDL is too high to HDL.  The LDL I believe is a touch too high though I reserve the right to change my mind should my HDL climb some. And the Overall is just about right.

[ed34]

Of course it's relentless and without justification. As I said, you have a known value X but an unknown value Y. The AHA have given you the X but won't put themselves on the line to state a Y value. Each Doctor can and seems to decide their own value for Y and this is dangerous. There have been numerous cases where low cholesterol has caused concern regarding mental problems such as memory loss, yet the drug companies simply shrug their shoulders as if to say "ignore it". We need cholesterol to live, it's VERY important in the body and to not know the minimum amount required yet keep lowering the number is just plain stupid.
As I put in my post earlier, if a patient has no obvious signs of increased disease, no newly developed symptoms, why keep driving it down? to what end and for what purpose?

[kenkeith]

You don't "drive down any further" is not the same as raising regardless of the spin you want to give it...again you don't relate to the question asked..I can't be more clear. You are going from a specific proposition (low LDL is harmful), to a proposed known harmful remedy of an LDL greater than <100.  In effect you are saying we all should increase our LDL level.  What should one do if 150 LDL is not helpful....go back to a lower LDL because a high LDL is not helpful! :)

[ed34]

actually I haven't recommended to anyone to raise their LDL, what I said was the UK has a higher minimum level, which was raised a couple of years ago. You know if drug companies tell me the sky is pink, I won't believe them because what I observe is different.

"What should one do if 150 LDL is not helpful....go back to a lower LDL because a high LDL is not helpful! :)"

Well, if you have high LDL and lower it to 150, to find it has no effect, then why is there a point to go even lower? If there is NO difference with a substantial decrease, then odds are, going lower will have no effect either. Another risk factor must be involved. I wouldn't lower the LDL to the point where the patient can't remember who they are just to prove the point.

Every time I've been in hospital, I've asked every single patient in the ward what their cholesterol is like. Amazingly they were all normal or low, and yes some through the help of medication. But the key thing here is, they all were continuing to have further intervention, bypass or stenting. Not what you would expect to see at all if you believe the whole story is cholesterol is it? I managed to get my LDL to 92, but still the disease progressed which is why I decided to look into other factors such as stress. I lowered my stress, raised my LDL back to around 130 and bingo, no more progression. That sky looks very blue to me :)

[erijon]

I have never put much faith into the argument that cholesterol must not be the issue since I know people with CAD and normal cholesterol levels. The problem with that thinking is that it does not take into account the number of people with no CAD and normal levels of cholesterol. I agree that inflammation also plays a role, but more so I think that there is also a aspect of cholesterol particle size that is involved as well. It is well know that people with high HDL levels may be at greater risk than originally thought because their HDL has a high percentage of large particle size HDL which has been shown to be less effective binding to LDL to eliminate it from the blood. I believe that the next big breakthrough will come from testing and treating VSLD lipids.

Whatever the case, since LDL is known to help promote the build up of plaques, it would seem to me that whatever the other factors may be, less is always better.

Just my opinion......................

[kenkeith]

When you say to someone their  LDL is WAY TO low and it is recommended by the UK 150 is appropriate...sounds to me that is an endorsement.  Also, I haven't found any affirmation the UK supports 150 LDL.  Can't believe Mayo Clinic is 2 years behind the curve.

[ed34]

I don't think it's anything about a curve, I think it's more to do with working with the situations you have. If lowering cholesterol levels very low makes no effect to the british public, then obviously other avenues are better for the time and resources. If it is giving vast improvements in the US and heart disease is dropping, then I'm really pleased that you've found the answer. Another thing which seems to differ is how the UK says plavix is only beneficial for one year. The US seems to be saying it should be given for much longer, maybe life. I received a call from Imperial College last week (where my stents were fitted last year) and I was asked why  I am still taking plavix. I explained how I haven't been told to stop by any medical professional and I then stated how the US have shown concerns with late clotting. I explained that surely after having 5 long stents, it might be wise to continue the medication for a few more years. I was told quite strongly not to believe everything I read on the internet or believe everything I hear, there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of plavix for more than a year. So now what do I do? I sit here and wonder if scaremongering is trying to force more drug sales, or is there any actual evidence in the statements. No matter which Doctor I speak to, they all say the same thing, don't take any notice of the internet and they laugh. I can't imagine why?

[RadioAstronomyObserver]

  Are we talking the same units?  mm/dl?

[kenkeith]

OK, you don't answer my question, but instead go off tangentially again to change the subject.  It is appears you are extrapulating your own LDL safe and effective level so we shouldn't take you very seriously in the scientific sense, is that fair?

[ed34]

Well, you've thrown the ball back into my court again, but let me bounce it back and hopefully you will address the issue I've been making all along, but ignored or said it's justified.
When NOBODY, knows the minimum level of cholesterol required by the human body, HOW can doctors continually be justified in pushing a patients lipid levels through the floor, NOT knowing what the consequences will be. In reality, it's no different to giving drugs to patients and keep increasing the dosages until they get side effects. It's irresponsible and downright dangerous. So, we lose out muscles, lose our minds, but hey, that's ok because we can balance it against the HOPE you won't get more progression of CAD. THIS is the point I'm trying to make. Doctors seem to want to keep pushing lipid levels lower and lower, they want kids on statins too now, in fact they want the world on statins. As we know, cholesterol is used to make vitamins, hormones, repair cells, make new cells, form permanent bonds between memory cells in the brain etc etc. This is why the body makes it and I'm sure that the body wouldn't make a substance which would deliberately destroy itself. We keep labelling LDL as bad, but it is not bad at all.
What you call science, is NOT real science. You refer to so called trials financed by the drug companies themselves and the selection process for the trial conveniently chooses the right people who will benefit, not the millions who wouldn't. Very soon they will be recommending we put statins in babies milk and start them early, would you actually agree to that science?

[kenkeith]

What evidence do you have to back up all that mumbo jumbo.:)  You shouldn't be so irresponsible with what you state as a positive, someone may believe you and harm themselves by not taking their medication (:  ....no need for a speech and keep repeating yourself. We can make up our own minds with evidence that you don't have and not unscientific conjecture that you seem to rely on.  .