General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Cholesterol frustration Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2013-02-07 9:24 AM

User image

Member
111
100
Eastern Shore Maryland
Subject: Cholesterol frustration

How many of you train, eat fairly well and still have cholesterol issues? I had a physical this week and my total cholestrol is 240, bad cholesterol is also high and my good cholesterol is 56 which is decent. I do have a family history of heart issues, but with the training (last year was about 2000 miles S/B/R'ing) and eating better than I ever have I was expecting much better numbers. Anyone else out there in the samr boat? I'm quite dissapppointed and frustrated. Thanks



2013-02-07 9:27 AM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Veteran
1384
1000100100100252525
Panama City, FL
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

my doc just told me in Jan you can't do anything about gentics, but you can do something about your diet/nutrition. That's what i'm struggling with. He said there's only so much a life of fitness can do to impact. Otherwise, it's diet and genitics.

 

2013-02-07 9:33 AM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Champion
18680
50005000500020001000500100252525
Lost in the Luminiferous Aether
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
Basically Yes.  I was told with my numbers I am a heart attack waiting to happen and that the way I eat and exercise is probably what is keeping that from happening.  Some of us lost that genentic lottery, that is all there is to it.  Take your statins.
2013-02-07 9:34 AM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

New user
64
2525
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
i feel your pain...started tri last year after having my cholesterol over 200 for a few years and on medication for it.  after a year of tri i am back down to around 160 but doctor will not take me off medication as high cholesterol is genetic in my family.
2013-02-07 10:14 AM
in reply to: #4612614

Regular
272
1001002525
Apple Valley, Minnesota
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration


I have been taking a stating since I was 31 or 32.  Its in the genes, my youngest sister started a satin at 25.   My total was 269, 83 Triglyceride, 70 HDL, 182 LDL.  Last year with diet exercise and satin, Total 151, 63 Triglyceride, 56 HDL, 95 LDL.  My diet is very light in fat consumption; I will use real butter, olive oil, that’s about it.  I eat lean meat, game, chicken and fish.  But the genetics seems to be the kicker, Paternal back 3 generations that we know of.  I would like to go off the satin, I haven’t had a grapefruit in 5 or so years, and one sounds good.

2013-02-07 10:16 AM
in reply to: #4612644


106
100
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

"back down to around 160 but doctor will not take me off medication as high cholesterol is genetic in my family"

Get a 2nd opinion.



2013-02-07 10:18 AM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Extreme Veteran
1018
1000
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
Thanks to my parents, I have bad cholesterol.  Since I was 25, I have been taking Crestor (35 now).  I tried getting off of it because I train and eat right.  It shot up.  It sucks. The cramping sucks.  But, it is what it is. 
2013-02-07 4:21 PM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Master
2855
20005001001001002525
Kailua, Hawaii
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

Personally I think the whole statin thing is flawed.  My doc told me to go on statins years ago, and initially I did...although had strange side effects from it, including horrible nightmares. So I went off it.

Educate yourself on statins and cholesterol, and come to your own conclusion, as it is controversial.

there are a myriad of books and videos on statins and cholesterol, pro and con. It's never easy to find the truth in these things..

For starters, here's one video...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdGt4tjoagI

2013-02-07 4:27 PM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Expert
2373
20001001001002525
Floriduh
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
I have been taking statins for a couple of years with no problem, cholesterol below 200 for the first time in my adult life.  Exercise and diet may just not be enough, this is all about your body's cholesterol homeostasis.  You, like me, didn't inherit the great cholesterol genes.

Edited by Oysterboy 2013-02-07 4:28 PM
2013-02-07 5:50 PM
in reply to: #4612614

Veteran
645
50010025
Tennessee
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
I am in the same boat. I have been on Lipitor for over a year. I am 33. Diet and exercise did nothing for me. I got it from both sides of the family.
2013-02-08 8:07 AM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Regular
853
5001001001002525
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

Yep.  I had a lipid panel done in Sept. and my TG were 406, Total cholesterol 202.  I had a repeat last week and now TG is 109, but Total cholesterol is 239.  I do not take meds for it.  I am a 43 year old female that has been active in some form or fashion all my life.  Blood pressure and resting HR is good and sugar is good.  I'm at normal weight.  I eat pretty healthy, although I do have a bit of a sweet tooth.

jami



2013-02-08 8:13 AM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Champion
7036
5000200025
Sarasota, FL
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

I have to watch my triglycerides all the time.  I've been working with my PCP to manage them through diet & exercise rather than through meds.  That was one of my primary motivations in losing twenty pounds over the last year or so.  So far, so good.

Mark

2013-02-08 8:34 AM
in reply to: #4613395

User image

Regular
110
100
North Carolina
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
Good for you, statins are bad news.  Before I decided to do something about my health I weighed 351. High BP, High cholesterol, Diabeties, and a whole host of other ailments that comes with being an obese couch potatoe. I was  taking a handful of pills every morn just to get my cholesterol down to high from off the charts high, BP to high from off the meter.   The statins were cooking my liver and I almost died from Liver failure.  If you are taking stains and you have lg aches, run, don't walk to your doctor and get your liver checked out, I didn't and it almost killed me.  Another side effect of statins is short term memory loss, I thought I was loosing my mind, I would walk around the house looking for my glasses and they were on!  Anyhow, after the Lipitor nearly killed me and my doctor was telling me she wasn't sure I'd make it to my next B-day unless I did something drastic, I made a decision to change my lifestyle.  Today I'm 173 pounds, more improtantly I am taking absolutely no prescription meds of any kind.  It's all about the diet.  I know I'm a PIA around people, but I'm very anal about what I put in my body.   I too am genetically predisposed to high cholesterol and diabetes, but I keep everything under control through proper diet and exercise and my cholesterol hovers near the high end of the normal range, but after my experience with statins, it's a risk I'm willing to take.  My wife says I replaced one additction (over eating) with another (exercise). LOL.

Edited by Bull 2013-02-08 8:43 AM
2013-02-08 8:50 AM
in reply to: #4614089

User image

Champion
7036
5000200025
Sarasota, FL
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

Another motivation I have to stay off meds is that I take the anti-coagulant Coumadin because of my mechanical heart valve.  Coumadin is metabolized through the liver and there are concerns about long-term liver damage just from that.  I really don't want to put any further strain on it by taking other stuff.   

Mark

2013-02-08 12:25 PM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Elite
3140
2000100010025
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

How much fructose especially when not with fruit or HFCSdo you consume?

well reknown pediatric endocrinologist from UCSF discusses the problem....about 50% through it when he gets to the biochemistry he explains the connection to Cholesterol and fructose/HFCS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM



Edited by FELTGood 2013-02-08 12:26 PM
2013-02-08 4:23 PM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Member
78
252525
Pineville, North Carolina
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

I'm 49. When I was 32, I went to the Dr. with what I thought was a chest cold. To make a very long story short, within a day I was in the hospital and had angioplasty to open my right coronary artery. It was a 95 percent blockage.

My total cholesterol at the time was only 160, but the key was HDL (good) cholesterol. It was only 29, so my total to HDL ratio was 5.5. People tend to only look at the total cholesterol level, but I can tell you that the total to HDL ratio is just as important.

I was pretty active before the procedure, but after it happened I got even more focused. I lost 35 lb and went on a very low-fat diet. Since then, the "knowledge" about the best way to eat for cardiac health has changed, and so has my diet. I have been on statins for 17 years, and I haven't had any issues, except for short term memory. But I'm not sure I can attribute that all to statins....

It's easy to say do it with diet and exercise, but sometimes that's not possible. Some people need the statins. As many have said, it's all in the genes, and mine has led me to a place where I need to take statins to keep my blood chemistry at the right levels.

I guess overall my advice would be to weight the risks and make your own decisions. I do agree that doctors rush to the "better living with chemistry" answer too quickly sometime, but deciding to reject medication might not be the answer as well.



2013-02-08 5:37 PM
in reply to: #4612614

Member
796
500100100252525
Malvern, PA
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration

Do your best but sometimes it's all in the genes and even if you are doing everything "right" you may need cholesterol treatment.

The benefits and risks of treatment are best held between doctor and patient, and not on the internet.

2013-02-08 8:37 PM
in reply to: #4612614

Elite
2608
2000500100
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
Perhaps this will be controversial, but here goes: there is a group of scientists out there headed by Uffe Ravnskov who call themselves the Cholesterol Skeptics. Their position is that if you are otherwise healthy (no diabetes, no high blood pressure) the cholesterol number means absolutely nothing in terms of predicting a heart attack. And triglycerides may be a better predictor.

Inflammation as measured by C-reactive protein is also very important. Low levels of inflammation mean less likelihood of arterial clogging.

Research has also shown that the size of LDL particles matter. The bigger LDL particles cannot embed into the arterial wall so the just float around in the blood harmlessly. However, current cholesterol tests only measure volume, not size. Large LDL particles, although harmless, take up space so will give a larger reading based on their volume. However, if other markers such as triglycerides, glucose, and C-reactive protein are all good, then there is a good chance that a high LDL just means you have large particles and are at low risk for heart disease.

Last blood test my cholesterol was 260. Doctor put me on statins and I developed muscle aches. Stopped taking them and never went back. My wife thinks I am a heart attack waiting to happen. I am not worried at all because my triglycerides, glucose, and C-reactive protein are all good.
2013-02-08 8:43 PM
in reply to: #4612614

Elite
2608
2000500100
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
Another fact about statins is that one of their side effects, which is actually a good side effect, is that they lower inflammation levels. There is a theory that it may be this inflammation-lowering effect, rather than the cholesterol lowing effect, that make statins effective at preventing heart disease.

A bad statin side effect is that it lowers Co-Q10 levels. Co-Q10 is a vitamin-like substance in the body that actually increases heart health. Ironic.

BTW, in his book Cholesterol Myths Uffe Ravnskov admitted that his cholesterol was 280. I believe he is in his 70s now and doing just fine.
2013-02-09 6:01 AM
in reply to: #4612614

User image

Member
1083
1000252525
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
Both my parents have heart disease. Well one had it. My dad died a few years ago from heart disease. He never had high cholesterol. Even when he had 90 percent blockages that lead to emergency surgery his cholesterol numbers without statins were okay. He started statins for the first time after surgery. What does this mean ... I have no idea. Although it made me question what doctors tell me much more. I now personally add a mental "we think." To what doctors say.

I did just read a book called "Wheatbelly." It's pretty out there. it's a little annoying because the author pretty clearly has his own agenda. In the end I think it's worth a read.

2013-02-09 12:44 PM
in reply to: #4615463

Elite
2608
2000500100
Denver, Colorado
Subject: RE: Cholesterol frustration
miamiamy - 2013-02-09 6:01 AM

Both my parents have heart disease. Well one had it. My dad died a few years ago from heart disease. He never had high cholesterol. Even when he had 90 percent blockages that lead to emergency surgery his cholesterol numbers without statins were okay. He started statins for the first time after surgery. What does this mean ... I have no idea. Although it made me question what doctors tell me much more. I now personally add a mental "we think." To what doctors say.

I did just read a book called "Wheatbelly." It's pretty out there. it's a little annoying because the author pretty clearly has his own agenda. In the end I think it's worth a read.



From Uffe Ravnskov's site http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth2.htm

2. Blood cholesterol has nothing to do with atherosclerosis

An excerpt from my previous book The Cholesterol Myths (out of print).
A link to the next section is available at the end

One of the most surprising facts about cholesterol is that there is no relationship between the blood cholesterol level and the degree of atherosclerosis in the vessels. If a high cholesterol really did promote atherosclerosis, then people with a high cholesterol should evidently be more atherosclerotic than people with a low. But it isn´t so.

The pathologist Dr. Kurt Landé and the biochemist Dr. Warren Sperry at the Department of Forensic Medicine of New York University were the first to study that question (25). The year was 1936. To their surprise, they found absolutely no correlation between the amount of cholesterol in the blood and the degree of atherosclerosis in the arteries of a large number of individuals who had died violently. In age group after age group their diagrams looked like the starry sky.

Drs. Landé and Sperry are never mentioned by the proponents of the diet-heart idea, or they misquote them and claim that they found a connection (26), or they ignore their results by arguing that cholesterol values in the dead are not identical with those in living people.

That problem was solved by Dr. J. C. Paterson from London, Canada and his team (27). For many years they followed about 800 war veterans. Over the years, Dr. Paterson and his coworkers regularly analyzed blood samples from these veterans. Because they restricted their study to veterans who had died between the ages of sixty and seventy, the scientists were informed about the cholesterol level over a large part of the time when atherosclerosis normally develops.

Dr. Paterson and his colleagues did not find any connection either between the degree of atherosclerosis and the blood cholesterol level; those who had had a low cholesterol were just as atherosclerotic when they died as those who had had a high cholesterol.

Similar studies have been performed in India (28), Poland (29), Guatemala (30), and in the USA (31), all with the same result: no correlation between the level of cholesterol in the blood stream and the amount of atherosclerosis in the vessels.

The question about blood cholesterol and atherosclerosis has been studied by coronary angiography also. It seems as if every specialist in coronary angiography in America has performed his own study, funded with federal tax money awarded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. In paper after paper published in various medical journals, using almost identical words, these medical specialists emphasize the importance of the blood cholesterol level for the development of atherosclerosis (33).

But the reports offer no individual figures, only correlation coefficients, and these are never above a minimal 0.36, usually even smaller. And they never mention any of the previous studies that found no association between degree of atherosclerosis and level of blood cholesterol.

Studies based on coronary angiography are fundamentally flawed if their findings are meant to be applied to the general population. Coronary angiographies are performed, mainly, on young and middle-aged patients with symptoms of heart disease, which means that a relatively large number of patients with familial hypercholesterolemia must have been included. Again, there is an obvious risk for the kind of bias that I described above. The fact that this objection is justified was demonstrated in a Swedish study performed by Dr. Kim Cramér and his group in Gothenburg, Sweden (34). As in most other angiographic studies the patients with the highest cholesterol values had on average the most arteriosclerotic coronary vessels.

But if those who were treated with cholesterol-lowering drugs were excluded, and almost certainly this group must have included all patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, the correlation between blood cholesterol and degree of atherosclerosis disappeared.


New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » Cholesterol frustration Rss Feed