New Guidelines for Cholesterol Readings

[Al]

This is not a medical recommendation merely an experience FOR ME.

I was taking a 20 mg statin and my last numbers were: Cholesterol-188, LDL-96, HDL-81,
As you get older doses tend to increase. The New Guidelines are now LDL-70. So I now take 40 mg.

Before I started taking statins my LDL hovered around 135 almost twice the today's recommended high for LDL.
My Total used to be 140 with HDL 65. I really should have been taking statins well before the 11 years that I have been taking them.

Some folks may want to do the research or see their docs.

 

[Leo99]

I take 20 mg generic Lipitor, my numbers are Cholesterol-155 LDL-80 HDL-59. I'm curious if my doctors would change my meds. I remember when total cholesterol range was less than 200 and they were happy.

 

[Lubener]

My doc has me on an 80mg generic Lipitor and my last total was 100, LDL 47, my HDL has always been historically low around 40 all my life. My doc pays more attention to my cholesterol/HDLC ratio which is good at 2.6. I don't have any drug side effects and am good with it.

 

[69GTX]

LDL and total cholesterol have been a "boogey man" since the 1960's/1970's.
The cholesterol "guidelines" are about as useful as the blood pressure guides.....mostly meant
to drum up business, but not lead to optimum health and longer life. One can probably toss out
cholesterol and HDL and instead focus on homocysteine, C Reactive Protein, triglyceride/chol. ratios,
and other things for predictive inflammatory markers.

Cholesterol numbers were once convenient....now they're just generally wrong. Only oxidized cholesterol is a problem,
especially when you have the smaller LDL particles Pattern B. If your body is not oxidizing cholesterol and plating it out
in your arteries, organs, and soft tissues, the total chol/LDL numbers are somewhat meaningless. Hearts are unhealthier
today than ever before....following 60 yrs of foolish Cholesterol and dietary guidance.

 

[Analog-1]

If you really want to live longer get OFF of those statin's now. They are a very nasty drug and do way more harm than good. You don't need them.

 

[Astro14]

If you really want to live longer get OFF of those statin's now. They are a very nasty drug and do way more harm than good. You don't need them.

Well - that’s one opinion.

Are you a doctor?

 

[paulswagelock]

There does seem to be a newer trend with younger docs that want to know partical sizes for cholesterol, specifics about the size and shape, etc, before blindly prescribing a statin.

 

[zzyzzx]

Are you a doctor?

No, but right now trust in doctors is really low as people have been catching on that when you go to a doctor it's almost always only about how much money they can get out of you and/or your insurance company.

 

[Pablo]

Statins are nasty indeed.

Cholesterol is not the thing to watch, triglycerides are.

 

[Vil_Riker]

What are your triglyceride levels? Mine was 174 last month and I'm very concerned.

 

[alarmguy]

This is not a medical recommendation merely an experience FOR ME.

I was taking a 20 mg statin and my last numbers were: Cholesterol-188, LDL-96, HDL-81,
As you get older doses tend to increase. The New Guidelines are now LDL-70. So I now take 40 mg.

Before I started taking statins my LDL hovered around 135 almost twice the today's recommended high for LDL.
My Total used to be 140 with HDL 65. I really should have been taking statins well before the 11 years that I have been taking them.

Some folks may want to do the research or see their docs.

Agree with your post AND the recommendation that anything they read here is for discussion with their doctor.
Here is my situation. Horrible heart history on the male side of my family. Im the only one that has not needed a quad bypass and the only one without diabetes. Being I was the youngest I fought like hell not to be in that situation.

It has MOSTLY worked but sometimes you cant over come genes. An angiogram a few year back did reveal I have coronary artery disease. No intervention needed, Plaque is at 20% the least detectable. TO put that in perspective a stress test will only reveal once you get to 60 - 70% plaque. I WANTED an angiogram because of my family history. My specialist worked the "system" to have ins pay for it.

IT has nothing to do with my lipid levels though. MY lipids were always perfect. LDL ALWAYS under 100 and sometimes around 70 without statins. The problem is purely genetic. Lipoprotein A is off the charts and there is no drug to control it yet and it is not controllable in any other way. (many drugs are in the pipeline)
SO with that said. I do take a 5MG statin, the Dr would like to see my LDL as close to zero as possible, under 30. Im working on it.
The reason for this is even though Lipoprotein can not currently be controlled the least amount of LDL in my system will still do some good.
This is my current LDL below, I was in a fight against cancer, now that is beat I will focus on getting this lower still.

Current cholesterol

​

Current Triglycerides

Thanks for your post, it's a stern reminder as good as these numbers are, (however as much as they have been checking my blood they have not done lipids this year yet) I REALLY need to get my act together and do better to avoid any future blockage. It's been a rough year this year with prostate cancer. That is now beat but in addition to radiation, the anti cancer drug that I took for six months had me put on so much weight for the first time in my life I never weighed so much, I used to be near my BMI. This is a reminder, now 3 weeks down with drug therapy to get back to the way I used to be.

 

[Astro14]

No, but right now trust in doctors is really low as people have been catching on that when you go to a doctor it's almost always only about how much money they can get out of you and/or your insurance company.

Trust in doctors may be low among some people.

But to say that I should trust some random on the internet over a doctor is foolish.

Medical advice is serious stuff - Bob is not the medical guy.

 

[Hohn]

LDL and total cholesterol have been a "boogey man" since the 1960's/1970's.
The cholesterol "guidelines" are about as useful as the blood pressure guides.....mostly meant
to drum up business, but not lead to optimum health and longer life. One can probably toss out
cholesterol and HDL and instead focus on homocysteine, C Reactive Protein, triglyceride/chol. ratios,
and other things for predictive inflammatory markers.

Cholesterol numbers were once convenient....now they're just generally wrong. Only oxidized cholesterol is a problem,
especially when you have the smaller LDL particles Pattern B. If your body is not oxidizing cholesterol and plating it out
in your arteries, organs, and soft tissues, the total chol/LDL numbers are somewhat meaningless. Hearts are unhealthier
today than ever before....following 60 yrs of foolish Cholesterol and dietary guidance.

This is the page I'm on, too. Your body is making cholesterol and the cholesterol you eat isn't the cholesterol in your blood. It's not like cholesterol magically escapes being digested while every other sort of fat, protein or carbohydrate doesn't escape.

I'm convinced that if your body is plating out cholesterol in your circulatory system, it's doing so to protect the tissues from inflammation. like a scab. So the real question is, what's causing the inflammation? Sugar? Oxidized seed oils?

Sugar seems to be a primary culprit, not fat. It's not eating fat that's bad, it's the the fats we eat are super processed seed oils because they are cheap and shelf stable.

Nobody is dying of heart disease from eating grass fed beef.

*not a doctor, this just my uninformed opinion based on what I've read and what makes sense to me*

 

[#18FAN]

Trust in doctors may be low among some people.

But to say that I should trust some random on the internet over a doctor is foolish.

Medical advice is serious stuff - Bob is not the medical guy.

That's why this thread should have never been made what you didn't expect push back

 

[alarmguy]

Statins are nasty indeed.

Cholesterol is not the thing to watch, triglycerides are.

I dont agree for the vast majority of people and people should not take this advice without a discussion with a heart specialist.

 

[alarmguy]

That's why this thread should have never been made what you didn't expect push back

Did you read the OP???
"This is not a medical recommendation merely an experience FOR ME."
Why would anyone "push back"??
Are you AI's doctor??

 

[alarmguy]

No, but right now trust in doctors is really low as people have been catching on that when you go to a doctor it's almost always only about how much money they can get out of you and/or your insurance company.

ITs sad you feel this way and I am glad I dont have your medial system up there.

 

[mikeduf]

LDL and total cholesterol have been a "boogey man" since the 1960's/1970's.
The cholesterol "guidelines" are about as useful as the blood pressure guides.....mostly meant
to drum up business, but not lead to optimum health and longer life. One can probably toss out
cholesterol and HDL and instead focus on homocysteine, C Reactive Protein, triglyceride/chol. ratios,
and other things for predictive inflammatory markers.

Cholesterol numbers were once convenient....now they're just generally wrong. Only oxidized cholesterol is a problem,
especially when you have the smaller LDL particles Pattern B. If your body is not oxidizing cholesterol and plating it out
in your arteries, organs, and soft tissues, the total chol/LDL numbers are somewhat meaningless. Hearts are unhealthier
today than ever before....following 60 yrs of foolish Cholesterol and dietary guidance.

LDL and total cholesterol have been a "boogey man" since the 1960's/1970's.
The cholesterol "guidelines" are about as useful as the blood pressure guides.....mostly meant
to drum up business, but not lead to optimum health and longer life. One can probably toss out
cholesterol and HDL and instead focus on homocysteine, C Reactive Protein, triglyceride/chol. ratios,
and other things for predictive inflammatory markers.

Cholesterol numbers were once convenient....now they're just generally wrong. Only oxidized cholesterol is a problem,
especially when you have the smaller LDL particles Pattern B. If your body is not oxidizing cholesterol and plating it out
in your arteries, organs, and soft tissues, the total chol/LDL numbers are somewhat meaningless. Hearts are unhealthier
today than ever before....following 60 yrs of foolish Cholesterol and dietary guidance.

Excellent read, you are spot on with that knowledge you possess. I have been reading a lot about LDL and overall cholesterol as mine had elevated LDL from poor diet.
The first thing I was told was go on a drug.
The only good advice that he gave me other than wanting me to take a pill was to cut out saturated fats completely from my diet which I have done now and automatically dropped my LDL bad cholesterol 20 points.

But I will say that reading on this subject, there are people that no matter what they do have high rate of LDL.

The one thing doctors don't tell you is that your brain consists mostly of cholesterol and they're finding now that people that have been on statins are losing their memory, thought process and different types of brain fog Etc.

Physicians should be addressing is what is causing the inflammation.

Not here to offend anyone , there's a lot of science on this and there are absolutely old school Physicians that are not clued in.

Just my two cents here

 

[tmorris1]

What are your triglyceride levels? Mine was 174 last month and I'm very concerned.

Bob is The Blood Guy. We can compare Blood Anaysis Samples...?

 

[69GTX]

Trust in doctors may be low among some people.

But to say that I should trust some random on the internet over a doctor is foolish.

Medical advice is serious stuff - Bob is not the medical guy.

There are numerous great doctors on the internet, FB, etc. When their views clash with mainstream medical advice, they get pushed out and often let go from their group practices. licenses revoked, etc. Many of them were previously banned from Google, FB, etc. and had to take their opinions to Rumble, Substack, etc. Where else are they going to get out the word on their findings and experiences? When you read the same opinions backed up by accurate clinical studies conducted all over the world, you eventually have to accept what the "internet" doctors have been telling us for years.

I only jumped into the discussion because it seemed to be 100% pro-statin, which is not what I've found through hundreds of hours of reading and research. My wife was recommended statins by her PCP about 10-15 yrs ago. She would have nothing to do with that. Her total cholesterol was in the 240-280 range and pretty much hereditary. With an extremely strict diet and exercise regimen she got it down to 220....and no lower. Myself on the other hand got my total chol. and trigs down to ridiculously low levels on a similar program...bottom 5% of the population. Now looking back on that, I'd bet my total chol was WAY too low, and not healthy. Guidelines for total chol back in the 1950's and 1960's were at 300. And they have been slowly lowered over time by the Medical Community....same way they have lowered the healthy blood pressure levels. Lower levels means more patients.

I recently saw of a study done overseas on a very large population by age group. One of the off shoots was that the ideal blood pressure based on total morbidity for people over 70 was around 130-150 systolic.....ideal was about 139. This diverges from the "recommended" levels of 110-120. In fact the study showed that death increased for those over 70 yrs old, the lower you went from the 130's. Your PCP or PA won't be giving you that information. Lower chol, lower BP,.......being lower isn't always "better."