Mothering Forum banner
1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,270 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I had a checkup around a year ago, and my doc told me that my good cholesterol was 74, and the bad was 124 (overall level 221).

He said that having such high HDL levels has a protective effect, so I didn't need to worry overall about my cholesterol level being high at this point.

I have never really read that anywhere else, I was wondering if anyone else had heard that or whether anyone knew whether it was really true?

I do trust his opinion in that area but just thought it was odd I'd never heard that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
Hi, Kay:

According to US National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines (part of a set of guidelines that are created periodically on different subjects by a group of experts in order to optimize and standardize care), an HDL cholesterol level of 60 mg/dL or greater is a negative risk factor. So in assessing your risk for cardiovascular disease, your HDL levels would be a plus. But there would still be other factors to consider, such whether you smoke, your waist measurement, the rest of your cholesterol panel, family and personal history, the presence of certain other diseases, etc.

Glad to hear that your HDL is good!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,488 Posts
I would suggest to you to read the book Overdosed America.

It sheds some light on the bogus 'studies' that made us all buy into the cholesterol controversy and ultimately Statin drugs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,270 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gitti View Post
I would suggest to you to read the book Overdosed America.

It sheds some light on the bogus 'studies' that made us all buy into the cholesterol controversy and ultimately Statin drugs.
Can you elaborate on this? How does it relate to my cholesterol levels? Are you saying that there are bogus studies on how the good cholesterol can outweight the bad, or bogus studies on bad cholesterol and how it can affect you, or what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,488 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by KristiMetz View Post
Are you saying that there are bogus studies on how the good cholesterol can outweight the bad, or bogus studies on bad cholesterol and how it can affect you, or what?

I don't have the book, Overdosed America here. My son in law is reading it at the present.

From memory:

The terms 'good' and 'bad' cholesterol have very little meaning and overall cholesterol should not be used to evaluate risk factors for heart attacks.

There are no studies that actually show that cholesterol is a contributor to heart attacks.

When we look at heart attack victims the majority have what would be consider 'average' or lower cholesterol.

From another book:

The studies that were used to first make us aware of cholesterol were funded by the margarine manufacturer and exacerbated by the pharmaceutical company that owns the rights to statin drugs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by KristiMetz View Post
I had a checkup around a year ago, and my doc told me that my good cholesterol was 74, and the bad was 124 (overall level 221).

He said that having such high HDL levels has a protective effect, so I didn't need to worry overall about my cholesterol level being high at this point.

I have never really read that anywhere else, I was wondering if anyone else had heard that or whether anyone knew whether it was really true?

I do trust his opinion in that area but just thought it was odd I'd never heard that.
both of my good and bad numbers are higher than yours--have been for years and the drs have been telling me the same thing. they did ask about my diet and exercise (vegetarian and before i had the baby it was about 10 hours a week) and that based on my lifestyle and my ratio numbers they said to "keep on keeping on"


just thought i'd let you know i'm in the same situation but i haven't really done any research on it either.....although i'm tempted to check out the book that was recommended to you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
The information in a cholesterol panel, including the levels of HDL ("good" choleserol) and LDL ("bad" cholesterol) are only part of the evaluation for a person's risk of heart disease. Other factors may be more important, such as heavy smoking or a very bad family history of early heart attack. High levels of triglycerides and LDL have been associated with increased risk of death from coronary artery disease in those under 50. One of the most influential studies, which is ongoing and cited immediately below, is the Framingham study. This is a collaboration of Boston University and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is part of the National Institutes of Health and receives federal funding. I know of no margarine manufacturers underwriting this study. Some studies have shown that there is no connection between cholesterol levels and heart attacks in younger patients, but other studies dispute this.

From JAMA: Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study.

From 1951 to 1955 serum cholesterol levels were measured in 1959 men and 2415 women aged between 31 and 65 years who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. Under age 50 years, cholesterol levels are directly related with 30-year overall and CVD mortality; overall death increases 5% and CVD death 9% for each 10 mg/dL. After age 50 years there is no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels....

...

From JAMA: Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III)

...Research from experimental animals, laboratory investigations, epidemiology, and genetic forms of hypercholesterolemia indicate that elevated LDL cholesterol is a major cause of CHD [coronary heart disease]. In addition, recent clinical trials robustly show that LDL-lowering therapy reduces risk for CHD....For persons with CHD and CHD risk equivalents, LDL-lowering therapy greatly reduces risk for major coronary events and stroke and yields highly favorable cost-effectiveness ratios....

...

From Academic Emergency Medicine: Risk Factors for Acute Myocardial Infarction in Young Women

OBJECTIVES: Young women presenting to the ED with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are often difficult to identify. The objective of this study was to determine the cardiac risk factors and ECG findings for young women presenting to the ED with AMI....The AMI group had more smokers (77% vs. 22.6%, OR = 11.5), hypertension (46.3% vs. 12.6%, OR = 6.6), diabetes (26.8% vs. 4.7%, OR = 7.4), elevated cholesterol (28% vs. 19.6%, OR = 2.5), and obesity (BMI > 30) (48.8% vs. 27%, OR = 2.6), with p < 0.05 for all categories. All AMI patients had at least one cardiac risk factor....CONCLUSIONS: Young women with AMI displayed all the usual risk factors, with smoking being the greatest risk, and approximately 92% had an initial ECG suggestive or diagnostic of AMI. All AMI cases had at least one risk factor for coronary artery disease. Young women without a cardiac risk factor and a normal EKG would be very unlikely to have AMI.

...

From the Journal of Internal Medicine: Cholesterol and triglyceride concentration as risk factors for myocardial infarction and death in women, with special reference to influence of age

...Objective. To evaluate the importance of serum cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations as predictors of myocardial infarction and death in women of different ages....Results. In the total population only serum triglyceride concentration was a strong independent risk factor for both end-points studied. Serum triglyceride concentration measured in 38- and 46-year-old women had no predictive value with respect to 24-year incidence of myocardial infarction or death. In 50-, 54- and 60-year-old women, high serum triglyceride concentration consistently predicted myocardial infarction and total mortality. Serum cholesterol concentration, on the other hand, showed evidence of direct association for 24-year all-cause mortality in the younger premenopausal group. Serum cholesterol had no predictive value for myocardial infarction or mortality in the peri- and postmenopausal ages....Conclusions. There appears to be age-specificity in association between serum lipids and these end-points in women, serum cholesterol concentration being more important for younger women and serum triglyceride concentration more important for postmenopausal women as risk factors, observations which need further attention.

...

From the New England Journal of Medicine: A prospective study of cholesterol, apolipoproteins, and the risk of myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND. The independent contributions of subfractions of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (HDL2 and HDL3) and apolipoproteins in predicting the risk of myocardial infarction are unclear....RESULTS. The levels of total cholesterol and apolipoprotein B-100 were significantly associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (data on levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were unavailable). Both HDL cholesterol and HDL2 levels were associated with a substantially decreased risk of myocardial infarction, but the HDL3 level was the strongest predictor....CONCLUSIONS. This study underscores the importance of HDL cholesterol in predicting the risk of myocardial infarction and demonstrates protective effects of both the HDL3 and HDL2 subfractions of HDL cholesterol.

...

From the British Heart Journal: Serum cholesterol and acute myocardial infarction: a case-control study from the GISSI-2 trial. Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto-Epidemiologia dei Fattori di Rischio dell'Infarto Miocardico Investigators

OBJECTIVE--To examine the role of serum cholesterol in acute myocardial infarction in a population of patients with no history of coronary heart disease and to establish the nature of this association, the degree of risk, and the possible interaction between serum cholesterol and other major risk factors for acute myocardial infarction....CONCLUSIONS-- This study indicates that serum cholesterol was an independent risk factor for acute myocardial infarction. This association was linear, with no threshold level. Moreover, there was a multiplicative effect between cholesterol and other major risk factors on the relative risk of acute myocardial infarction.

...

If you HDL continues to be high, it will be viewed as a protective factor in deciding your risk for heart disease. There's still a lot to be discovered about cholesterol, heart disease, and atherosclerosis, but taking some commonsense measures to protect yourself is prudent. This includes monitoring your cholesterol, not smoking, maintaining a healful weight, eating a lower-fat diet with no trans fats and little saturated fats, and exercising often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,488 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by KristiMetz

...He said that having such high HDL levels has a protective effect, so I didn't need to worry overall about my cholesterol level being high at this point.
From Cholesterol and Heart Disease - A Phony Issue:

Quote:
Blood cholesterol levels between 200 and 240 mg/dl are normal. These levels have always been normal. In older women, serum cholesterol levels greatly above these numbers are also quite normal, and in fact they have been shown to be associated with longevity.
The Oiling of America:

Quote:
The "Evidence" for the Lipid Hypothesis -

In the years that followed, a number of population studies demonstrated that the animal model-especially one derived from vegetarian animals-was not a valid approach for the problem of heart disease in human omnivores.

A much publicized 1955 report on artery plaques in soldiers killed during the Korean War showed high levels of atherosclerosis, but another report-one that did not make it to the front pages-found that Japanese natives had almost as much pathogenic plaque-65% versus 75%-even though the Japanese diet at the time was lower in animal products and fat.4

A 1957 study of the largely vegetarian Bantu found that they had as much atheroma-occlusions or plaque buildup in the arteries-as other races from South Africa who ate more meat.5

A 1958 report noted that Jamaican Blacks showed a degree of atherosclerosis comparable to that found in the United States, although they suffered from lower rates of heart disease.6 A

1960 report noted that the severity of atherosclerotic lesions in Japan approached that of the United States.7

The 1968 International Atherosclerosis Project, in which over 22,000 corpses in 14 nations were cut open and examined for plaques in the arteries, showed the same degree of atheroma in all parts of the world-in populations that consumed large amounts of fatty animal products and those that were largely vegetarian, and in populations that suffered from a great deal of heart disease and in populations that had very little or none at all.8

All of these studies pointed to the fact that the thickening of the arterial walls is a natural, unavoidable process.

The lipid hypothesis did not hold up to these population studies, nor did it explain the tendency to fatal clots that caused myocardial infarction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
108 Posts
I'm glad that "The Oiling of America" and the Framingham Study were mentioned. Once you look into this issue, you'll learn all kinds of things about saturated fat, lowfat diets, and cholesterol.

Another great resource is The Cholesterol Myths By Uffe Ravnskov.

Here's an excellent link titled" What Causes Heart Disease" through the Weston A. Price Foundation.

HTH!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,736 Posts
Quote:

Originally Posted by amjs View Post
both of my good and bad numbers are higher than yours--have been for years and the drs have been telling me the same thing. they did ask about my diet and exercise (vegetarian and before i had the baby it was about 10 hours a week) and that based on my lifestyle and my ratio numbers they said to "keep on keeping on"

Being vegetarian doesn't automatically protect a person from heart disease either. I have an Indian friend who is vegetarian and all the men (also vegetarian) in his family have died from heart attacks. India has a high incidence of heart disease these days despite all the vegetarianism there. Alot of processed junk food is vegetarian, kwim?
:


Quote:
This includes monitoring your cholesterol, not smoking, maintaining a healful weight, eating a lower-fat diet with no trans fats and little saturated fats, and exercising often.
Low-fat isn't necessarily the way to go either. We are Weston Price follower's so we eat good-fat, not low-fat. Bad fats are vegetable oils like corn, canola, soybean, safflower and anything hydrogenated. Good fats are things like butter, lard, tallow, goose fat, coconut oil, and sesame seed oil. They are good because they contain vitamins and minerals. They are are more stable when heat is applied during cooking. Veggie oils, including olive oil, go rancid if heated too high. Rancid oils rob the body of nutrients instead of adding nutrients which could lead to scarring of tissue in the heart and thus heart disease. Have you ever heard about the corn oil study from 1965? Here's a great synopsis:

We'd like to remind the folks at Harvard and Aetna about a study published in the British Medical Journal almost 40 years ago. Patients who had already had one heart attack were assigned to one of three groups and given polyunsaturated corn oil, monounsaturated olive oil and saturated animal fats respectively. The endpoints were further heart attack or death. Blood cholesterol levels were lowered by an average of 30 percent in the corn oil group while there was no change in the other two groups. However, at the end of the two-year trial only 52 percent of the corn oil group were still alive and free of a fresh heart attack. Those on the monounsaturated olive oil fared little better: 57 percent survived and had no further heart attack. But those eating saturated animal fats fared the best with 75 percent surviving and without further attack (BMJ 1965;1:1531-33). The recent crescendo of anti-saturated-fat/pro-statin polemic does not come from convincing new evidence, we think, but from a sense of desperation. The public just isn't buying the propaganda anymore. Even a small percentage of American consumers returning to real foods like butter and cheese is enough to send the whole agricultural/pharmaceutical/food processing complex, built on the vegetable oil/lowfat dairy paradigm, into a tailspin.

http://www.westonaprice.org/causticc.../cc2003fa.html

Kim
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top