Early Signs of RA?

mzh · Post by **mzh** » Thu May 03, 2012 11:19 am

That's interesting. My cholesterol has always been between 250 and 290. Then I gave up trying to lower it and started using real butter and even a dab of lard a couple times a week for frying eggs. Guess what; my cholesterol dropped to 190. I got a

on the card they mail to you telling you what the levels are. I thought 190 was good; my doc's office apparently does too. What to think?

Zizzle · Post by **Zizzle** » Thu May 03, 2012 11:29 am

I certainly eat enough eggs, meat, and saturated fat to maintain a normal to high cholesterol level, so I agree with Tex's theory that MC is forcing us to use our cholesterol stores.

Sheila · Post by **Sheila** » Thu May 03, 2012 11:40 am

Re swollen and crooked fingers. There is a hereditary condition called Hebenden's nodes. It is a form of OA, my mother had it and I have it. She also had MC. The finger joints become very painful, begin to swell and any bump against it is agony. Once the joint has become completely deformed, the pain stops. It seems to attack the fingers serially and is more common in women.

I have noticed that when I began taking Cox 2 inhibitors, the swelling would stop and the pain would stop. When I stop taking them, the swelling begins again as does the pain. I've been off Celebrex for over a week and feel awful. All the pain and stiffness of my arthritis is making life miserable. I have been GF/SF/DF for a year and was hoping my arthritis would improve if I stopped the Celebrex. Perhaps because of my age, my joints are beyond help.

As to the thumb joint, women are much more prone to deterioration of that joint than men. I can barely write because of pain in this joint since I stopped taking Celebrex. I sleep with a thumb spica splint on my wrist and hand and that does ease the pain during the day. Some people get relief with a steroid injection into the joint. This did not help me at all.

Why is Celebrex so bad for us? I have stopped and started it a few times since being diagnosed with MC and feel really lousy without it.

Sheila W

mzh · Post by **mzh** » Thu May 03, 2012 12:18 pm

Celebrex is an NSAID. The material on MC always says first thing that NSAIDS are a probable cause of MC. I don't know about that. Now I'm thinking it's about a food allergy or a virus that invaded the gut. Any NSAID can cause sudden GI bleeding plus a boatload of other side effects.

PS I took Celebrex years ago. It made me dizzy; couldn't drive when I took it but I think it worked pretty well.

Post by **tex** » Thu May 03, 2012 12:32 pm

Marcia wrote:I thought 190 was good; my doc's office apparently does too. What to think?

Yep, my doc is tickled pink, too. Bless his misguided heart, (he also has been taking a statin for about as long as they're been available).

A cholesterol level in the 150 to 200 range is fine for someone who is young, and up through middle age. As we get older though, a higher cholesterol level becomes protective of infections and cancer. For senior citizens, higher total cholesterol levels are strongly associated with longevity. People in their 80's, for example, who have a cholesterol level over 300 have the best odds of outliving their peers who have lower cholesterol levels.

Sheila wrote:Why is Celebrex so bad for us? I have stopped and started it a few times since being diagnosed with MC and feel really lousy without it.

To add to what Marcia wrote about Celebrex -- for people who have an inflammatory bowel disease, (and remember that celiac disease is also an IBD), NSAIDs can cause the production of leukotrienes, which can cause D and inflammation. That doesn't mean that it causes that problem for everyone who has an IBD, but it definitely causes it for a certain percentage.

Tex

mzh · Post by **mzh** » Thu May 03, 2012 1:57 pm

Bless his misguided heart - that was my laugh for the day!

Deb · Post by **Deb** » Thu May 03, 2012 3:20 pm

My PCP said we would probably have to address my cholesterol before she got the latest results back. It had been 247 two years ago. It came back at 228 with an HDL of 90. She said it was borderline. I assured her I was very comfortable with my level and have no intentions of statins. I also eat plenty of meat, eggs and saturated fat. I'm thinking the red wine is helping the HDL!

Post by **tex** » Thu May 03, 2012 4:20 pm

Deb,

You're probably correct about the wine. The fountain of youth is apparently located somewhere in the Napa Valley of California, rather than in Florida, as Ponce de León thought. The anti-aging properties of red wine have been in the news recently.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/ne ... ive-longer

Tex

Lesley · Post by **Lesley** » Fri May 04, 2012 3:08 pm

I decided, based on these ideas, to stop taking statins and not worry. Cholesterol is 234, LDL is too high (163), HDL too low (34) etc. I am NOT going to worry. Repeat - I am not going to worry!

Deb · Post by **Deb** » Fri May 04, 2012 5:12 pm

Lesley, my cynicism is coming through again but it seems the "safe levels" change according to the whims of the pharmaceuticals. About a year ago I was in getting my blood pressure checked. It was 120/80. I was delighted. The nurse said, "that's a little high, let's check it again." I said, "why, so they can put more people on drugs?" She seemed kind of embarrassed and said "probably". When she retook it (I was pissed) it was 160 over something.

Post by **tex** » Fri May 04, 2012 5:36 pm

Deb wrote:It was 120/80

If 120/80 is anything to be concerned about, I'm a

's uncle. An "ideal" BP reading is considered to be approximately 115/75 by many authorities. Now, "pre-hypertension" is considered to be associated with a systolic pressure in the range from 130 to 140. Big Pharma loves to see patients treated for "pre-conditions" (diseases that don't exist, IOW) because it increases drug sales by several orders of magnitude.

They're probably trying to create a "pre-pre-hypertension category so that there won't be many people who won't qualify for a prescription.

Tex

JFR · Post by **JFR** » Fri May 04, 2012 5:41 pm

tex wrote:
Deb wrote:It was 120/80
Big Pharma loves to see patients treated for "pre-conditions" (diseases that don't exist, IOW) because it increases drug sales by several orders of magnitude.

They're probably trying to create a "pre-pre-hypertension category so that there won't be many people who won't qualify for a prescription.

The book "Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health "by Gordon Welch et al is worth reading. He talks specifically about the dangers of overtreatment.

Jean

Deb · Post by **Deb** » Fri May 04, 2012 5:43 pm

I'm afraid you're right, Tex. It's really a sad state of affairs.

mzh · Post by **mzh** » Fri May 04, 2012 5:59 pm

Lesley wrote:I decided, based on these ideas, to stop taking statins and not worry. Cholesterol is 234, LDL is too high (163), HDL too low (34) etc. I am NOT going to worry. Repeat - I am not going to worry!

So, did the doc tell you how to raise the HDL? My husband has the same too low HDL issue but no one's ever said how to fix it. Argh!

Post by **tex** » Fri May 04, 2012 8:21 pm

Marcia wrote:So, did the doc tell you how to raise the HDL? My husband has the same too low HDL issue but no one's ever said how to fix it. Argh!

My HDL is always in the low 30's and my LDL is always too high. One time I asked my doc how I could change my diet to correct those problems. He said that I might be able to change it a little, but probably not very much, because it's hereditary. According to him, the only practical way to lower it by any significant amount is by taking a statin.

Tex