Saw my GP this morning who is very concerned that the budesonide has now not only put my blood pressure up but mmy cholestral is now 6.2 (it should be less than 4) and that is despite being on statins! He is changing me to a stronger dosage of the latter and I have managed to get a cancellation at the hospital so will see my consultant on Monday. I have to admit to feeling a little panic! Anyone got advise to calm me down??
Anne
Very High Cholestral
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh, mbeezie
-
fatbuster205
- Gentoo Penguin
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 7:53 am
- Location: Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
-
fatbuster205
- Gentoo Penguin
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 7:53 am
- Location: Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Hi Anne,
I'm afraid that you're worrying about nothing. I'm sorry that I didn't notice your first post in this thread, because 6.2 mmol/l is the equivalent of 240 mg/dl, in U.S. units, which is my goal (though I've never been able to get it that high). Personally, I consider 4 mmol/l (155 mg/dl)to be not only unhealthy, but actually dangerous to survival, during traumatic health events. If you will do some online research, you will discover that 4 mmol/l is associated with the greatest risk of death during recovery periods following surgery or other similar traumatic events. In addition, research shows that as we age, our total cholesterol level is directly associated with longevity — the higher the cholesterol level, the longer we live.
True, higher cholesterol levels are unhealthy for young people, but that changes as we pass middle age. For some unknown reason, doctors fixate on the effects of high cholesterol levels for young people, to the detriment of older folks. IOW, they don't get it, and their advice for older people is completely out of step with research data (and with longevity studies). I've listed links to a few research articles to illustrate my point, but if you will search the medical literature, you will find additional studies that support my claim. Please check this out carefully — unfortunately, our long-term health depends on us being able to properly interpret the research data and understand it, even though our doctors seem to be incapable of understanding such obvious facts (they're apparently brain-washed by the pharmaceutical companies).
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-934 ... 1/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2564950
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content ... eytype=ref
Believe it or not, I have the opposite concern about my own health, because ever since part of my terminal ileum was removed (3 years ago), my cholesterol level has been hovering around 200 mg/dL (5.2 mmol/l), and I can't seem to increase it, no matter what I do. A few months after the surgery, it dropped to 4 mmol/l (they had me taking a statin), and that scared the heck out of me. I stopped the statin (it was also causing my fingers to lock up during the night, so that I couldn't flex them), but I'd like to see my level at least up in the 230 mg/dL (6 mmol/l) to 250 mg/dL (6.5 mmol/l) range, or higher, as insurance against possible adverse health events in the future. Of course, my naive doctor is quite happy with my level.
Tex
I'm afraid that you're worrying about nothing. I'm sorry that I didn't notice your first post in this thread, because 6.2 mmol/l is the equivalent of 240 mg/dl, in U.S. units, which is my goal (though I've never been able to get it that high). Personally, I consider 4 mmol/l (155 mg/dl)to be not only unhealthy, but actually dangerous to survival, during traumatic health events. If you will do some online research, you will discover that 4 mmol/l is associated with the greatest risk of death during recovery periods following surgery or other similar traumatic events. In addition, research shows that as we age, our total cholesterol level is directly associated with longevity — the higher the cholesterol level, the longer we live.
True, higher cholesterol levels are unhealthy for young people, but that changes as we pass middle age. For some unknown reason, doctors fixate on the effects of high cholesterol levels for young people, to the detriment of older folks. IOW, they don't get it, and their advice for older people is completely out of step with research data (and with longevity studies). I've listed links to a few research articles to illustrate my point, but if you will search the medical literature, you will find additional studies that support my claim. Please check this out carefully — unfortunately, our long-term health depends on us being able to properly interpret the research data and understand it, even though our doctors seem to be incapable of understanding such obvious facts (they're apparently brain-washed by the pharmaceutical companies).
The red emphasis is mine. Note that the highest mortality rates were associated with a cholesterol level below 160 mg/dL (4 mmol/l), and mortality was much, much lower for all other cholesterol level categories.Mortality was inversely related to cholesterol levels (<160 mg/dL: 5.2% [110/2115]; 160–199 mg/dL: 2.2% [49/2210]; 200–239 mg/dL: 1.6% [27/1719]; and ≥240 mg/dL: 1.7% [16/940]; P for linear trend <0.001).
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-934 ... 1/abstract
Again, the red emphasis is mine.Mortality was lowest at serum cholesterol 7.0 mmol/l, 5.2 times higher than the minimum at serum cholesterol 4.0 mmol/l, and only 1.8 times higher when cholesterol concentration was 8.8 mmol/l. This relation held true irrespective of age, even when blood pressure, body weight, history of myocardial infarction, creatinine clearance, and plasma proteins were taken into account.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2564950
The red emphasis is mine, of course.However, the lack of exposure-response in the trials between changes in LDL-cholesterol and clinical and angiographic outcome, the inverse association between change of cholesterol and angiographic changes seen in the observational studies, the significant increase in complicated atherosclerotic lesions in the treatment group after cholesterol lowering by diet, and most of all, the fact that high cholesterol predicts longevity rather than mortality in old people, suggests that the role, if any, of high cholesterol must be trivial. The most likely explanation for these findings is that rather than promoting atherosclerosis, high cholesterol may be protective, possibly through its beneficial influence on the immune system.
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content ... eytype=ref
Believe it or not, I have the opposite concern about my own health, because ever since part of my terminal ileum was removed (3 years ago), my cholesterol level has been hovering around 200 mg/dL (5.2 mmol/l), and I can't seem to increase it, no matter what I do. A few months after the surgery, it dropped to 4 mmol/l (they had me taking a statin), and that scared the heck out of me. I stopped the statin (it was also causing my fingers to lock up during the night, so that I couldn't flex them), but I'd like to see my level at least up in the 230 mg/dL (6 mmol/l) to 250 mg/dL (6.5 mmol/l) range, or higher, as insurance against possible adverse health events in the future. Of course, my naive doctor is quite happy with my level.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Anne, you'll need to do the conversions. My cholesterol was around 240 but my HDL was upper 80's in 2010. My PCP wanted to put me on statins. I declined.
I started treating my thyroid in June of 2012. My cholesterol at the end of 2012 was around 200 with upper 80's for my HDL. Two months later (end of February 2013) my cholesterol was 180 with HCL of lower 80's. I believe my cholesterol issues (if I really have any) are from my thyroid. Deb
I started treating my thyroid in June of 2012. My cholesterol at the end of 2012 was around 200 with upper 80's for my HDL. Two months later (end of February 2013) my cholesterol was 180 with HCL of lower 80's. I believe my cholesterol issues (if I really have any) are from my thyroid. Deb
-
fatbuster205
- Gentoo Penguin
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 7:53 am
- Location: Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Food for thought! My concern is that I had a cousin drop dead at 41 and her cholesterol was extremely high. It runs in our family and all studies here are to get levels way down! An interesting bit of research is required clearly before I panic - thank you for the responses as they have calmed me down!
Anne
Anne
Hi Anne,
Obviously this is a very controversial subject. Doctors use the same approach in this country, also, and most think that the lower the cholesterol level, the better. But the issue is much more complicated than they try to make it. They tend to ignore the patient's age when recommending a treatment, but age actually makes a huge difference in the body's need for cholesterol. And cholesterol is a vital ingredient for many vital body processes.
For example, fat digestion depends on bile, and bile is produced from cholesterol (mostly recycled cholesterol reclaimed from unused bile salts in the terminal ileum. Vitamin D is made from cholesterol in the skin, when sunlight activates the chemical process. Cholesterol is vital for maintaining the integrity of the myelin sheaths that enclose (insulate) and protect nerves in the brain and the spinal column. Research shows that in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, and others who have dementia-based diseases, cholesterol and fatty acids are deficient, and this apparently allows the myelin sheaths to dry out and deteriorate, causing the nerves to die. I can cite medical research references on this, if you are interested.
But you are quite correct, for young people, especially when there is a history of cardiovascular issues in the family, higher cholesterol levels are not only unnecessary, but often associated with dangerous health risks. As we age, the situation slowly reverses, and this is the part that is widely misunderstood. The key seems to be the size and texture of the LDL cholesterol particles — large and fluffy is good, small and dense is bad.
The problem is that very few doctors bother to order tests to determine which type we predominantly have, and this is the most important cholesterol test available, IMO. The test results can tell us whether or not our elevated LDL level is benign, or associated with a significant risk. Even so-called "normal" levels of LDL cholesterol can be risky, if the particle size is small, but most doctors seem to be completely oblivious of this fact. Here are a couple of links to information about tests for this, if you are interested.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2011-mchi/6264.html
http://www.centerforpreventivemedicine. ... senger.pdf
Tex
Obviously this is a very controversial subject. Doctors use the same approach in this country, also, and most think that the lower the cholesterol level, the better. But the issue is much more complicated than they try to make it. They tend to ignore the patient's age when recommending a treatment, but age actually makes a huge difference in the body's need for cholesterol. And cholesterol is a vital ingredient for many vital body processes.
For example, fat digestion depends on bile, and bile is produced from cholesterol (mostly recycled cholesterol reclaimed from unused bile salts in the terminal ileum. Vitamin D is made from cholesterol in the skin, when sunlight activates the chemical process. Cholesterol is vital for maintaining the integrity of the myelin sheaths that enclose (insulate) and protect nerves in the brain and the spinal column. Research shows that in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, and others who have dementia-based diseases, cholesterol and fatty acids are deficient, and this apparently allows the myelin sheaths to dry out and deteriorate, causing the nerves to die. I can cite medical research references on this, if you are interested.
But you are quite correct, for young people, especially when there is a history of cardiovascular issues in the family, higher cholesterol levels are not only unnecessary, but often associated with dangerous health risks. As we age, the situation slowly reverses, and this is the part that is widely misunderstood. The key seems to be the size and texture of the LDL cholesterol particles — large and fluffy is good, small and dense is bad.
The problem is that very few doctors bother to order tests to determine which type we predominantly have, and this is the most important cholesterol test available, IMO. The test results can tell us whether or not our elevated LDL level is benign, or associated with a significant risk. Even so-called "normal" levels of LDL cholesterol can be risky, if the particle size is small, but most doctors seem to be completely oblivious of this fact. Here are a couple of links to information about tests for this, if you are interested.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/news2011-mchi/6264.html
http://www.centerforpreventivemedicine. ... senger.pdf
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
I received the results of my non-fasting lab work yesterday.
Total Cholesterol: 252 (Min-Max 125-199)
Triglycerides: 134 (Min-Max 30-149)
HDL Cholesterol: 63
LDL Cholesterol was high (no number given)
Non-HDL Cholesterol: 189 (Min-Max 0-159)
CHOL/HDL Ratio: 4.0
I should mention that I eat no saturated fats, no ghee, butter, margarine or coconut oil because I react to them all. My only fats are almond, hazelnut, corn and canola oils. Clearly my cholesterol is due to genetics.
Naturally, I received a call from the doctor's office reporting my "high" cholesterol. My PCP knows that I won't take a statin, so he's just in CYA mode.
I found this article on fasting vs. non-fasting cholesterol: http://www.jewishhospitalcincinnati.com ... rdial.html
If I'm interpreting it correctly, the article is claiming there is a correlation for women between a high non-fasting triglyceride level and ischemic stroke. Although my cholesterol is somewhat high at 252, my triglycerides are in the normal range at 134. Is this implying that I'm not as at-risk for a stroke as I've feared?
I wanted to ask my PCP about your regimen of taking Plavix, etc., but he seemed pretty bent on scolding DH and me because we hadn't made Living Wills nor designated Powers of Attorney.
When I asked him for a DEXA scan order, he wanted to know why I wanted one. Duh - I have osteoporosis and I'm taking steroids and want to know if the strontium is helping. When I explained my reasons, he said "Oh, it's informational only, because you aren't going to do anything as a result." Because I'm not taking Fosamax, which HE prescribed a few years ago, he considers that I'm not willing to treat it? What about strontium? That's a treatment sanctioned in Europe. I was pretty irritated with him for the first time. I'm hoping the reason is he was having a bad day. Or maybe he received his new insurance rates.
Gloria
Total Cholesterol: 252 (Min-Max 125-199)
Triglycerides: 134 (Min-Max 30-149)
HDL Cholesterol: 63
LDL Cholesterol was high (no number given)
Non-HDL Cholesterol: 189 (Min-Max 0-159)
CHOL/HDL Ratio: 4.0
I should mention that I eat no saturated fats, no ghee, butter, margarine or coconut oil because I react to them all. My only fats are almond, hazelnut, corn and canola oils. Clearly my cholesterol is due to genetics.
Naturally, I received a call from the doctor's office reporting my "high" cholesterol. My PCP knows that I won't take a statin, so he's just in CYA mode.
I found this article on fasting vs. non-fasting cholesterol: http://www.jewishhospitalcincinnati.com ... rdial.html
If I'm interpreting it correctly, the article is claiming there is a correlation for women between a high non-fasting triglyceride level and ischemic stroke. Although my cholesterol is somewhat high at 252, my triglycerides are in the normal range at 134. Is this implying that I'm not as at-risk for a stroke as I've feared?
I wanted to ask my PCP about your regimen of taking Plavix, etc., but he seemed pretty bent on scolding DH and me because we hadn't made Living Wills nor designated Powers of Attorney.
When I asked him for a DEXA scan order, he wanted to know why I wanted one. Duh - I have osteoporosis and I'm taking steroids and want to know if the strontium is helping. When I explained my reasons, he said "Oh, it's informational only, because you aren't going to do anything as a result." Because I'm not taking Fosamax, which HE prescribed a few years ago, he considers that I'm not willing to treat it? What about strontium? That's a treatment sanctioned in Europe. I was pretty irritated with him for the first time. I'm hoping the reason is he was having a bad day. Or maybe he received his new insurance rates.
Gloria
You never know what you can do until you have to do it.
The article certainly suggests that to be the case. And when you consider the following quote, one's cholesterol level would have to be extremely high to be associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke. The most impressive part is the additional verification that increasing cholesterol levels have no connection with an increased risk of overall mortality. It appears that many doctors are making a good living treating patients for nothing (if the patients will allow it).Gloria wrote:If I'm interpreting it correctly, the article is claiming there is a correlation for women between a high non-fasting triglyceride level and ischemic stroke. Although my cholesterol is somewhat high at 252, my triglycerides are in the normal range at 134. Is this implying that I'm not as at-risk for a stroke as I've feared?
Yep, your doc appears to have the same adolescent attribute that a surprising number of doctors seem to be plagued with — if a patient won't embrace (or at least accept) one of their favorite drugs, they pout. And while they may not remember your name the next time you see them, they will forever remember that you wouldn't take a drug that they love to prescribe.however cholesterol of ≥789mg/dl was associated with increased risk of ischemic stroke (17). Even more surprisingly, only increasing levels of nonfasting triglycerides were associated with total mortality, whereas increasing cholesterol levels were not (5).
And you're quite correct — genetics have the lion's share of control over cholesterol levels. Thanks for the link.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
.jpg){kind=avatar}
I haven't had my cholesterol level tested in years although my doctor keeps ordering it. I have told her that since I won't change anything as a result of the testing there is no point in getting it tested. I took Lipitor once and had disabling joint pain. As soon as I stopped it the pain went away. That convinced me that statins were a bad idea and this was before I know what I know now about cholesterol and statins. I am definitely non-compliant which I believe is the healthiest way for me to be, at least in this regard.
Jean
Jean
-
fatbuster205
- Gentoo Penguin
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 7:53 am
- Location: Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Hi Anne,
Do you happen to know what your non-fasting triglyceride level is approximately 4 hours after eating (or at any time after eating)? That seems to be the most reliable indicator of the risk of adverse cardiovascular events.
Presumably the normal range would be 0.3389–1.6837 mmol/L (that's provided that the normal range is the same for either fasting or non-fasting blood tests, which might be an inappropriate assumption, but the lab would have the correct range).
In the studies, the highest risks appeared to be associated with a non-fasting triglyceride level of 4.956 mmol/L (which is equivalent to 438.6 mg/dL)
Tex
Do you happen to know what your non-fasting triglyceride level is approximately 4 hours after eating (or at any time after eating)? That seems to be the most reliable indicator of the risk of adverse cardiovascular events.
Presumably the normal range would be 0.3389–1.6837 mmol/L (that's provided that the normal range is the same for either fasting or non-fasting blood tests, which might be an inappropriate assumption, but the lab would have the correct range).
In the studies, the highest risks appeared to be associated with a non-fasting triglyceride level of 4.956 mmol/L (which is equivalent to 438.6 mg/dL)
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
fatbuster205
- Gentoo Penguin
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 7:53 am
- Location: Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Nope! Here we are told it should be below 4 but I am not sure what that represents! Mine has come down to about 5.1 and that is on statins!tex wrote:Do you happen to know what your non-fasting triglyceride level is approximately 4 hours after eating (or at any time after eating)? That seems to be the most reliable indicator of the risk of adverse cardiovascular events.
If you ever feel too insignificant to be noticed, you have never been to bed with a mosquito!
Anne,
As you are well aware, I'm not a doctor, but based on all the most current research that I've reviewed, it appears that reducing your triglyceride level is a far more valuable means of reducing the risk of cardiovascular problems than reducing cholesterol levels. I have never seen any research that demonstrates that reducing cholesterol levels actually reduces mortality risk.
That said, I have seen evidence that statins do reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events for some people. I have a hunch that is because of the fact that statins also reduce triglyceride levels (and various other things — coenzyme Q10, for example). IOW, IMO doctors are monitoring the wrong marker — cholesterol is not the correct marker to monitor, it just happens to have some degree of correlation with triglyceride levels.
I don't advocate taking statins. However, if you are taking a statin, I hope that your doctor has also recommended a coenzyme Q10 supplement, because CQ10 is important for the proper functioning of the heart, liver, kidneys, and pancreas, and long-term use of statins can lead to a deficiency. The dosage needed would depend on the type and amount of statin that you are taking. Many/most doctors tend to downplay and/or overlook the importance of CQ10, just as they are unaware of the importance of vitamin D for IBD patients.
You may find the UK website at the link below to be of interest. I didn't have time to watch the video at the end of the page, but the presentation at the top of the page is pretty much on target, IMO. The advice about adding fiber should be ignored, of course, by anyone who has MC.
7 Proven Tips for Lowering Your Triglycerides - Naturally & Quickly
Tex
As you are well aware, I'm not a doctor, but based on all the most current research that I've reviewed, it appears that reducing your triglyceride level is a far more valuable means of reducing the risk of cardiovascular problems than reducing cholesterol levels. I have never seen any research that demonstrates that reducing cholesterol levels actually reduces mortality risk.
That said, I have seen evidence that statins do reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular events for some people. I have a hunch that is because of the fact that statins also reduce triglyceride levels (and various other things — coenzyme Q10, for example). IOW, IMO doctors are monitoring the wrong marker — cholesterol is not the correct marker to monitor, it just happens to have some degree of correlation with triglyceride levels.
I don't advocate taking statins. However, if you are taking a statin, I hope that your doctor has also recommended a coenzyme Q10 supplement, because CQ10 is important for the proper functioning of the heart, liver, kidneys, and pancreas, and long-term use of statins can lead to a deficiency. The dosage needed would depend on the type and amount of statin that you are taking. Many/most doctors tend to downplay and/or overlook the importance of CQ10, just as they are unaware of the importance of vitamin D for IBD patients.
You may find the UK website at the link below to be of interest. I didn't have time to watch the video at the end of the page, but the presentation at the top of the page is pretty much on target, IMO. The advice about adding fiber should be ignored, of course, by anyone who has MC.
7 Proven Tips for Lowering Your Triglycerides - Naturally & Quickly
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
-
fatbuster205
- Gentoo Penguin
- Posts: 342
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2012 7:53 am
- Location: Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Thanks for that Tex! I think I know what I need to do!!! Unfortunately I have had a really bad day - 7 type 3's in rapid succession followed by 3 x type 6 aka McDonald's milkshakes!! Plus 3 vomits, major nausea and fatigue! Guess I ate something I shouldn't have!!! 
Thank God for Imodium as I drove 120 miles! I now know every toilet between my house in Carrickfergus and Clogher, Co Tyrone! 
You have to laugh at what we live with even when you feel c**p!!
Anne
Thank God for Imodium as I drove 120 miles! I now know every toilet between my house in Carrickfergus and Clogher, Co Tyrone! You have to laugh at what we live with even when you feel c**p!! Anne
If you ever feel too insignificant to be noticed, you have never been to bed with a mosquito!
Whoa! I'm sorry to hear that. That had to be a high-stress trip. 
Maybe you picked up a virus. I hope you're doing much better by tomorrow.
Tex
Maybe you picked up a virus. I hope you're doing much better by tomorrow.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.