My new Cholesterol readings. I don't want to take statins!

So you are saying he is a hack for ignoring some research contract to his opinion but you can have research argue with your opinion and you are not a hack? I don't understand your logic here.

You guys can argue to the cows come home (btw T Rex is correct), but the thread was started by a guy/runner with alleged LDL of 236. The bottom line is that basically even without knowing anything else about his medical history, there is evidence based guidelines based on peer reviewed rigorous studies that he should be on a statin (LDL>190, prob familial hypercholesterolemia) - and a high dose, high intensity one like atorvastatin 80. All the almonds and kale in the world arent gonna get his numbers down to Carlos' levels which are ideal.

SUP guys, didn't notice this thread until now, my apologies.

As the other guy pointed out before me, beware of carbs, they will elevate your triglycerides beyond belief and that's when it really becomes dangerous.

You don't have to eliminate carbs completely, but follow the following recommendations:

1. Load up on animal meat (incl. wild salt water fish)

2. eliminate all grains

3. eat moderate amounts of vegetables

4. careful with JUNK FRUIT (oranges, apples, bananas, ...). Basically, everything that is overly sweet. Fruits that are ok: berries

5. Nuts - try to stick to nuts high in monounsaturated fats, like macademias

6. oils - use lard, tallow, ghee, olive oil and coconut oil (good for testosterone)

You should be back to normal within 2-3 months.

Hi T Rex. There is plenty of evidence in research that also contradicts the story. The big issue is the pharmaceutical industry pushing drugs, and pushing the "ideal" cholesterol limits lower and lower to get more people on statins, which have notable side effects. You have no freaking idea if eating a proper diet will change his numbers. If you are not T Rex, I guess he has a fellow retard on this board.

evidenced based medicine wrote:

You guys can argue to the cows come home (btw T Rex is correct), but the thread was started by a guy/runner with alleged LDL of 236. The bottom line is that basically even without knowing anything else about his medical history, there is evidence based guidelines based on peer reviewed rigorous studies that he should be on a statin (LDL>190, prob familial hypercholesterolemia) - and a high dose, high intensity one like atorvastatin 80. All the almonds and kale in the world arent gonna get his numbers down to Carlos' levels which are ideal.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Carlos in Tijuana wrote:

No, no, no. Not here to boast about it at all. Truly received results in mail just prior to seeing thread.

Honestly clueless. Eighth grade education here.

Googled it and got WebMD etc ...

Figured I'd ask experts of LR.

ok, well if you're not trolling:

webmd is a fine source for simply telling you what the recommend range for your #'s should be. As you can see, you are about as good as it gets. Congrats.

Since i went down that road....what is your diet like?

Not great. Better than Joe the Plummer, but have weaknesses.

Some kind of bread product for breakfast, with plenty of java.

Turkey sandwich for lunch pretty much everyday. With chips (weakness).

Dinner consists of meat, starch, veggies

Dessert at times.

get used to it.. wrote:

Hi T Rex. There is plenty of evidence in research that also contradicts the story. The big issue is the pharmaceutical industry pushing drugs, and pushing the "ideal" cholesterol limits lower and lower to get more people on statins, which have notable side effects. You have no freaking idea if eating a proper diet will change his numbers. If you are not T Rex, I guess he has a fellow retard on this board.

You know it wasn't me, so go F_CK yourself. Okay ignorant, racist, fad-dieting, know-nothing, lard-loving, a$$wipe?

And yes, he can't say for sure if a good diet will lower the OP's cholesterol #'s, but one can certainly say without doubt that many with familial hypercholesterolemia aren't able to meaningfully budge their cholesterol values with any sort of dietary change, this is well documented, so shut your ignorant trap. And it is also well documented, that if any diet will help lower someone's high cholesterol, it is a VERY low sat fat/cholesterol diet, exactly contrary to the type of BS dietary advice you push.

Got it, you ignorant clown? Yup, I am sure you did, loud and clear.

Ha. You aren't even him because the name isn't even all there and as big. Of a freaking idiot as he is, you seem to be an even bigger one. Fact is, research doesn't prove anything and the current recommendations are based strictly on what is best for the bottom line of the pharmaceutical and health care industries.

I'm 44(m) and just got my numbers earlier in the week:

Total: 230

HDL Cholesterol 101

LDL Cholesterol 119

Triglycerides 48

VLDL Cholesterol 10

I am concerned that my LDL is over 100 and my total is over 230. But then I read that low triglycerides like mine (48) can offset higher LDL. What? And reading this board I see there are 2 camps firmly entrenched and absolutely convinced they're correct: The low-fat people and the high-fat/low-carb people.

I will say that I eat a lot of junk food, sweets, and breads. I like my beer, too. I've already started eliminating this garbage. Still, I'm more confused than ever by reading this thread.

You should be confused. Because research is contradictory and recommendations are made by people unwilling to let go of yesteryear. Read both sides for yourself and see what you believe.

Ken in VA wrote:

I'm 44(m) and just got my numbers earlier in the week:

Total: 230

HDL Cholesterol 101

LDL Cholesterol 119

Triglycerides 48

VLDL Cholesterol 10

I am concerned that my LDL is over 100 and my total is over 230. But then I read that low triglycerides like mine (48) can offset higher LDL. What? And reading this board I see there are 2 camps firmly entrenched and absolutely convinced they're correct: The low-fat people and the high-fat/low-carb people.

I will say that I eat a lot of junk food, sweets, and breads. I like my beer, too. I've already started eliminating this garbage. Still, I'm more confused than ever by reading this thread.

There are two camps, one that respects the current research and is very likely 'staffed' by people with advanced degrees and experience and the other camp which I would describe as perjorative and 'conspiracy theorists' who think statins are a hoax perpetuated by Big Pharma. I'm not gonna get in an internet argument about it.

To answer your question, not knowing anything else about you, you are likely fine with that monster HDL. The current indication for statin therapy for you would be if your estimated 10 yr cardiac event risk were >7.5%. It very likely is not unless you have diabetes, hypertension and/or smoke. I bet negative to all three. Just keep exercising.

Health care will make big progress when people learn to decide for themselves what to believe because people with a vested financial interest in pharmaceuticals can admit that not only does research support all aspects of what the say they are treating, but the potential side effects of the medicines are truly unknown, and the factors causing such diseases are not conclusively supported by research and are in fact highly individual, based on the individuals demographics and their own health history. When people who hold popular belief because it is tradition they don't want to let go of, stop calling other people who question them "conspiracy theorists" in a subversive way to influence other people to believe they are right.

There is nothing discussed on here that has really been proven that hasn't been called into question by subsequent research.

Ken, I will give you my best answer in a little bit. Please realize, that at least on this thread, the two camps consist of:

* people (like me, and Mike Lundgren, and some others) with work and/or educational experience in the topic at hand (nutrition, cardiac care/rehab, etc)

* and fad nutrition zealots like cult fit clown and get used to it, who have ZERO education or work experience in said fields, and who feel that the USDA and Big Pharma and Modern Medicine are out to get them, have lied to them to make them sick for profit (it's a big conspiracy), and who use as their health and nutrition resources blogs written by acupuncturists, chiropractors, personal trainers, and people who are against vaccinations and who think one can lose 20 lbs in a week on a magic steak and eggs diet without really trying to cut calories because "dietary fat can't make you fat".

So its your choice on who to listen to, but that's where the two groups are coming from (lastly, I am not, actually, necessarily a "low fat" or "low meat" person. I think lots of PUFA rich foods are great for people, think that very low sat fat animals foods/drinks like fish, chicken breast, lean red meat, fat-free milk, etc can easily be part of a healthy diet. So I am not an extremist, but the super low carb, "grains will kill you", fruit is too high in sugar, etc side certainly is).

Get used to it.. wrote:

You should be confused. Because research is contradictory and recommendations are made by people unwilling to let go of yesteryear. Read both sides for yourself and see what you believe.

Yes, he should be confused, on that we agree, because sometimes the contrarian new fad diet people are the loudest voices, despite their minority status, and drown out the voices of the majority of experts (see Jenny McCarthy and the vaccine "controversy"). The status quo isn't "sexy", but a "NEW IMPROVED, super diet that will rid of all your problems" of course is a lot more eye-grabbing. And that's what the "alternative", fad diet gurus use to push their books, websites, and products. Also, they capitalizes on distrust of big business (like Pharma). On that point I understand, and I do agree that many drugs are over prescribed (see anti-depressants and ADHD drugs). I am a critic of big pharma too. However, that doesn't mean all drugs or medicine is bad, and for crissakes, that's the way some act. And that is why I push diet, lifestyle, exercise first, of course. but the simple reality is that for many people that's not enough, and for many others where it might be enough, they don't have the discipline to change their lifestyle enough to make a difference in the their CVD risk. For those groups, it is absolutely true that statins are life-savers.

The "yesteryear" type of comments you keep referencing of course dumb, because I link to the latest research from 2010-2014 (and isn't the paleo diet ALL ABOUT "yesteryear" ??? lol) . Just because this brand new research confirms a lot of previous research, that you've convinced yourself was wrong, doesn't make it old. Nope, sorry, you're wrong. I know it must be depressing for you to think that all these great "NEW, REVOLUTIONARY," diet regimens that "overturned" the ol' paradigm of nutrition (that must have been so exciting for you to think you were on the cutting edge of new truths that trashed the old belief system) were/are actually way overblown, and often BS. And that is why you cling to them so emotionally. This is understandable from a psychological viewpoint, however, I am afraid that you will just have to "get used to it."

Statins are actually healthy...on healthy people too.

What fad diets an I peddling? You keep using this as an excuse. Have I mentioned any diets on this thread? I have never tried the paleo diet. You keep mentioning things to try to mock me that are flat out wrong you freaking dingleberry.There is a reason you picked your screen name you troll...because the things you believe are becoming extinct. You have no idea of what kind of education people on here have that are disagreeing with you. And there is no shortage. Yet you claim you are the one who knows what you are talking about. You are such a freaking moron. Statins harm a bunch of people. Just wait until the class action lawsuits come flooding. They have already started due to women on statins developing Type 2 diabetes at greater rates than those without. You just can't alter physiological feedback loops without consequences.

get used to it.. wrote:

You just can't alter physiological feedback loops without consequences.

Very astute comment. This is the reason it is so risky to focus on symptom treatment rather than cause-prevention. There is little doubt that statins can lower cholesterol but you need to ask whether it is a good idea to paint over rusty metal.

(((Chill)))

With that high HDL reading you probably are ok.

My cholesterol is normally 180-200 and my HDL is 50-60. Doctors don't seem concerned. Of course I'm less interested in living forever as I approach 70.

I don't want a drug laden existence.

Just got my blood work results. Switched to a paleo diet about 2 years ago.

2010 (pre paleo):

HDL: 48

LDL: 46

Triglycerides: not determined

While those are excellent LDL values, I realized that HDL was on the low side for a guy in his early 30's.

2014 (after 2 years of paleo):

HDL: 64

LDL: 60

Triglycerides: 37

So while my HDL improved, the LDL went up, too, but less. So overall, the ratio improved.

My diet includes eggs (about 20 per week) and red meat (steak, pork) pretty much daily. I try to get fish about once per week and sometimes take fish oil.

Question for T-Rex: I noticed that the triglycerides are really low - is that a problem or do you think there is no "too low" for it?

Carlos in Tijuana wrote:

Stroke of coincidence. Just got blood work in mail.

Totals cholesterol = 163

Tryglicerides = 87

HDL = 70

LDL = 76

What's it all mean???

Help me understand !

163 is much better than average in the U.S., showing that you have a much better chance of not dying from coronary artery disease compared to the average person in the U.S. The last time I checked my cholesterol it was 123.

However, you have a high risk of stroke, thyroid and adrenal dysfunction, hardening of the arteries and high blood pressure due to your high consumption of caffeine. Personally, I consider caffeine to be a killer and stay away from it.