what ratios really matter?

A forum to discuss cholesterol and the meaning of blood cholesterol levels.

what ratios really matter?

Postby gardenmaniac » Thu Dec 02, 2010 10:28 am

Latest lab work:

total 275
tri 44
hdl 68
ldl 198

of course, the doc is horrified by the LDL.. she wrote "yikes" on the report & prescribed Cholestyramine (which I am porbably not going to take) as she knows I had adverse effects from statins.

Anyway, after researching Cholestyrmine & doing more reading articles have said that with triglycerides low, the LDL isn't accurate, other ratios like HDL/total and tri/HDL are more important indicators of a problem.

Anyone have information about this?
gardenmaniac
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 9:17 am

Postby lars999 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 2:05 pm

Hello gardenmaniac!!

I would like to know same things. What I am not willing to accept presently is almost any answers based on the now widely discredited idea that cholesterol, HDL, LDL are the cause(s) of cardiovascular diseases. Your doctor, like most are still singing the old refrain about cholesterol and lipids -- we both may be dead of natural causes before ordinary doctors learn to sing a more accurate tune.

Suggest you browse through or search on the various articles by Duane Graveline, Malcom Kendricks, Kilmer McCully, Uffe Ravenskov, all on this site for the information most likely to be accurate and based on more accurate understanding of causes of cardiovascular diseases.

Back before I agreed to take Lipitor (one of my most stupid decisions) I too had such high LDL, as well as high triglycerides. BUT, ultrasound measurements on my cartoid arteries (big ones on each side of neck, that feed blood to brain) showed absolutely NO plaque of any kind. Ditto for subsequent measurements on femoral, etc. arteries in legs. Leaves my cardiologist with "egg on his face". He also thinks all statins are wonderful -- I try to keep poker face when he says that.

Perhaps someone that has digested all this will post some truly useful answer.

Lars
lars999
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010 10:14 am

Postby David Staup » Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:41 pm

hi maniac,

look at table 5 and table 6 here. it shows the levels versus mortality IN PEOPLE TAKING LOW DOSE STATINS (50 K).

"http://dspace.lib.kanazawa-u.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2297/7526/1/ME-PR-MABUCHI-H-1087.pdf


if you do the math for absolute risk rather that relative risk the cholesterol levels for longest life (lowest mortality) it puts you right in the sweet spot....ask your doctor to splain that lucy

here several "all cause" mortality versus cholesterol are discussed.

"http://www.spacedoc.net/cheerios_fda

if these, especially the first, does not convince your doctor then come back and I'll give you more on this and start on statin side effects and thier prevalence.

this doesn't answer your question directly but goes to the real heart of the matter...ie that the whole lipid hypothosis is very bad science from start to finish. Doctor Graveline spoke about the future of diagnasing the markers of CVD but I can't find it right off....
David Staup
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 1:13 pm
Location: granbury, texas


Return to Cholesterol

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests