Went back to my PCP last week as my GI had stopped some of my meds and I wanted to double check with some more blood tests, etc. I gave her a copy of the enterolab results and she added those sensitivities to my chart and told me Kroger's in a town about 30 miles from here had a good selection of GF items. She was glad I had finally gotten control of the WD.
New tests showed no problem with platelets and blood sugar so apparently the restricted diet has helped that.
My cholesterol was 290...106 HDL and 160 LDL. Now I have started taking prescription Niacin Extended Release (since I can't take statins). I began 4 days ago with a 500 mg capsule at bedtime. I will increase each week until I am up to 2000 mg.
The last 2 nights I have been awakened with the 'flush' very uncomfortable with every square inch of my skin itchy, bumpy and red like sunburned. lasted about an hour last night.
Does anyone here have any experience with niacin? Research shows it as very effective for helping both cholesterol numbers, just don't know if I can take the flushing for very long.
Different Kind of Flush
Moderators: Rosie, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Different Kind of Flush
Theresa
MC and UC 2014
in remission since June 1, 2014
We must all suffer one of two things: the pain of discipline or the pain of regret. ~Jim Rohn
MC and UC 2014
in remission since June 1, 2014
We must all suffer one of two things: the pain of discipline or the pain of regret. ~Jim Rohn
Re: Different Kind of Flush
Hi there,nerdhume wrote:Went back to my PCP last week as my GI had stopped some of my meds and I wanted to double check with some more blood tests, etc. I gave her a copy of the enterolab results and she added those sensitivities to my chart and told me Kroger's in a town about 30 miles from here had a good selection of GF items. She was glad I had finally gotten control of the WD.
New tests showed no problem with platelets and blood sugar so apparently the restricted diet has helped that.
My cholesterol was 290...106 HDL and 160 LDL. Now I have started taking prescription Niacin Extended Release (since I can't take statins). I began 4 days ago with a 500 mg capsule at bedtime. I will increase each week until I am up to 2000 mg.
The last 2 nights I have been awakened with the 'flush' very uncomfortable with every square inch of my skin itchy, bumpy and red like sunburned. lasted about an hour last night.
Does anyone here have any experience with niacin? Research shows it as very effective for helping both cholesterol numbers, just don't know if I can take the flushing for very long.
I have the same reaction to Niacin, my face and arms get bright red and majorly itchy. I can't stand it!
Actually Nerdhume,
Your cholesterol is not bad. I would be happy to trade with you, if I could.
I don't know what your doc told you, but your cholesterol is at that elevated level mostly because of your incredibly high HDL, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. We have to consider what the various components of total cholesterol actually represent. I suspect your doctor is unable to see the forest because of all the trees.
For example, if your HDL was at the same level as mine, your total cholesterol would be 215, and 215 is a good number for total cholesterol. My doc used to be happy/satisfied when mine was in the 220—230 range (unfortunately, now it's much lower — 184 on my last CBC, and so my misguided doc is as happy as a lark. LOL.). Unfortunately, I'm not happy, and I wish I could figure out how to get my numbers much higher.
With an HDL of 106, you should have nothing to worry about, cardiovascularwise (as if that's word, LOL). But the main point I want to make is that (like many of us here) you are entering an age range where your higher total cholesterol result will be a huge health advantage, as far as longevity is concerned. I envy you, because since my surgery, I don't seem to be able to get mine to increase, no matter how "unhealthy" my diet is (according to USDA guidelines). In fact, it seems that the farther I deviate from their guidelines (IOW, the less fiber and carbs I eat, and the more red meat and fat I eat, the lower my total cholesterol level slides).
Here is an old post that I wrote in response to another member's question about cholesterol, on October 31, 2011. I believe that you may find it ineresting (if you haven't already seen this information):
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13628
Tex
Your cholesterol is not bad. I would be happy to trade with you, if I could.
I don't know what your doc told you, but your cholesterol is at that elevated level mostly because of your incredibly high HDL, and that's a good thing, not a bad thing. We have to consider what the various components of total cholesterol actually represent. I suspect your doctor is unable to see the forest because of all the trees.
For example, if your HDL was at the same level as mine, your total cholesterol would be 215, and 215 is a good number for total cholesterol. My doc used to be happy/satisfied when mine was in the 220—230 range (unfortunately, now it's much lower — 184 on my last CBC, and so my misguided doc is as happy as a lark. LOL.). Unfortunately, I'm not happy, and I wish I could figure out how to get my numbers much higher.
With an HDL of 106, you should have nothing to worry about, cardiovascularwise (as if that's word, LOL). But the main point I want to make is that (like many of us here) you are entering an age range where your higher total cholesterol result will be a huge health advantage, as far as longevity is concerned. I envy you, because since my surgery, I don't seem to be able to get mine to increase, no matter how "unhealthy" my diet is (according to USDA guidelines). In fact, it seems that the farther I deviate from their guidelines (IOW, the less fiber and carbs I eat, and the more red meat and fat I eat, the lower my total cholesterol level slides).
Here is an old post that I wrote in response to another member's question about cholesterol, on October 31, 2011. I believe that you may find it ineresting (if you haven't already seen this information):
And you may find the additional information about cholesterol and a possible link with Alzheimer's disease that's mentioned in the topic at the link below to be interesting (if you haven't seen it previously).Garina,
The older I get, the less I worry about elevated cholesterol levels. Doctors try to impose a one-size-fits-all cholesterol program for everyone, but the fact is that high cholesterol appears to be bad for young and medium aged people, but as we get older, higher cholesterol is directly associated with increased longevity. IOW, research shows that for older people, (as a group), the higher our cholesterol level, the longer we live. If you would like to see some references on that, consider these:
Converting the units to conventional units, (from the international units used in the article), means that this research showed that the lowest mortality occured at a total cholesterol level of 270 mg/dL, (7.0 mmol/l). At a total cholesterol level of 154, the risk of death was 5.2 times as high, and at a cholesterol level of 340 mg/dL, the risk of death was increased to only 1.8 times as high as at 270 mg/dL level.92 women aged 60 years and over (mean 82.2, SD 8.6) living in a nursing home and free from overt cancer were followed-up for 5 years. 53 died during this period; necropsy revealed cancer in only 1 patient. Serum total cholesterol at entry ranged from 4.0 to 8.8 mmol/l (mean 6.3, SD 1.1). Cox's proportional hazards analysis showed a J-shaped relation between serum cholesterol and mortality. 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. The relation between low cholesterol values and increased mortality was independent of the incidence of cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2564950
Also, higher cholesterol levels are important for surviving the stress of hospitalization. Look at the results of this study:
http://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-934 ... 1/abstractResults
Patients (mean [± SD] age, 78 ± 7 years) were hospitalized for an average of 15 ± 10 days. The mean total cholesterol level was 186 ± 49 mg/dL. A total of 202 patients died during hospitalization. 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). After adjustment for potential confounders (demographic characteristics, smoking, alcohol use, indicators of nutritional status, markers of frailty, and comorbid conditions), low cholesterol levels continued to be associated with in-hospital mortality. Compared with patients who had cholesterol levels <160 mg/dL, the odds ratios for in-hospital mortality were 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.70) for participants with cholesterol levels of 160 to 199 mg/dL, 0.41 (95% CI: 0.26 to 0.65) for those with cholesterol levels of 200 to 239 mg/dL, and 0.56 (95% CI: 0.32 to 0.98) for those with cholesterol levels ≥240 mg/dL. These estimates were similar after further adjustment for inflammatory markers and after excluding patients with liver disease.
Conclusion
Among older hospitalized adults, low serum cholesterol levels appear to be an independent predictor of short-term mortality.
Here's another study:
Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina in this cohort of persons older than 70 years.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/272/17/1335.abstract
And for the very old:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9343498INTERPRETATION: In people older than 85 years, high total cholesterol concentrations are associated with longevity owing to lower mortality from cancer and infection.
Here's what Dr. Briffa has to say about it, in a blog titled, "Why a ‘raised’ cholesterol level may be a cause for celebration":
http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/10/06/why- ... lebration/
Tex
http://www.perskyfarms.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13628
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.