I don't see any groups here specifically about cholesterol, so I figured that you guys being all supplementy and stuff, you might be able to give me some good advice. My cholesterol has come back high yet again, even though I've really been watching my diet and am swimming 20 laps (don’t know pool length) 2-3 times a week. I guess I could exercise more, but most everything but swimming aggravates my feet and it’s hard to get to the pool more. Anyway, here are my numbers:

Total - 221
HDL - 66
LDL - 133
Triglicerides - 112

I know that my HDL is pretty good and my total and LDL are borderline bad, but I'm not sure how much more I can do with my diet. I’m staying way under the recommended daily limit of cholesterol. Do any of you believe that bad carbs can raise cholesterol? I don’t know what to believe except that I think Atkins and Ornish are both too extreme on opposite ends. I could stand to lose about 25 lbs, though—that might help.

Here are the daily supplements that I take and thought are supposed to lower cholesterol:

Fish oil - 3,000 mg
B1 (thiamine) - 100 mg
CoQ10 - 100 mg

Are there any other supplements that I should try? After reading here, I know I do NOT want to take any statins, and I doubt my risk factors are high enough to justify that. Any suggestions are welcome.

Thanks!

Please read my cholesterol thread on the Subforum...


http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/post665830-5.html

and this:
http://www.naturalnews.com/028988_st...e_effects.html

Your numbers look pretty typical and normal to me! But it is your decision in the end.

One hidden thing that raises cholesterol, thru liver metabolism is a diet high in sugar and fructose. You could try avoiding both.
But there is really little evidence that cholesterol is such a villain. Only the drug companies have made it so, so they could make tons of $$. That is my opinion.

Now why did I think that you would have some ideas, mrsD?

I didn't think it was that big of a deal either, especially since my LDL/HDL ratio is good and so are my triglicerides and blood pressure, but my doctor insisted that I need to get the numbers down.

And don't worry--I'm not going anywhere near statins, especially after I saw here that they can cause PN! Last thing I need!

Thanks!

So much more to look into and read now! I'm the one who takes a low-level dosage of a statin for cholesterol and it has no connection to my sensory PN I've had for 11 yrs. Started the statin about 3 yrs ago, can't remember exactly. I knew it could cause neuropathy and raised the question with my PCP who had not heard of it. Then I searched and everything I read always came back to one study in the Netherlands I think which found causes but at a very low risk % for PN, so....he prescribed 1/2 dose for me to try and it has worked. His concern has been for my LDL number which he says should be 100 or under and he likes to see it under 70, so that is my goal. I've been able to get it there most of the time but not all and this last time, he said take full-strength. His reason for this is because my problem is genetic and I have diabetes too and that has it's own effects on the heart and circulatory system. I've recently had my heart checked out with tests and it's in great shape, I'm able to do walking (1 mile) for exercise and believe that's a big factor, plus low-fat diet.

We are sure of the genetic link because my Mom has the same thing and also I have annual testing from 1989-2001 done at my job with the numbers supporting this.

But I am going to read this new information, Mrs. D with an open mind, I'm a retired research lab technician (bio), need to put in a "new person post" I guess and am interested in your research here. My Mom's situation is a little higher in the numbers but she eats well and is going strong at age 93. She has had 2 angina attacks, but no lasting effects. She gets some exercise working in her yard and a little walking. Her Dr., an internist, for whatever reason has not ever put her on any cholesterol med....he is regarded by some in the community as being less up on the latest, but just maybe he is the wisest of all! He was my Dr. til I moved and a family friend....

--have swallowed the cholesterol viewpoint of the drug companies without much questioning, and have been convinced to prescribe statins and other things to really get the cholesterol numbers, especially the LDL, down very, very low.

As Mrs. D points out in her threads, however, there have been some skeptics doing work in the area to see if epidemiologically these lowered cholesterol levels actually have the salutary effect drug comapnies claim--and/or if the lowered levels, statin-induced and otherwise, may have deleterioius effects.

I've read a lot of the literature back and forth, and have come to the conclusion that as far as cardiac events are concerned, the triglyceride levels in concert with inflammatory levels, especially C-reactive protein levels, are probably a better monitor of the potential for adverse thrombotic or coronary events than strict cholesterol levels are (even LDL); there are many different types of cholesterol particles, some of them quite essential for nerve and other tissue function, and the standard tests don't distinguish them well enough. One can have a high overall cholesterol level simply because on has a high HDL (the so-called "good" cholesterol) level, for example. It depends on whether the cholesterol is forming blood vessel plaques, which usually takes some sort of inflammatory lesion for the particles to latch on to/try to cover over.

And, given what we're finding out about statins, I don't think they should be a first line treatment for those with moderately high levels--despite the drug companies effots to convince cardiologists they should be in our drinking water. I'd try much more benign oatmeal, fish oil, and exercise first.

And, yes, there's a lot of literature to support that a diet too rich in refined carbs--especially corn syrup and other highly refined sweeteners--is actually worse than eating a lot of saturated fat (and our obesity rates in the West certainly coincide with the introduction of highly refined carbs into the diet; they play havoc with insulin levels and tend to cuse fat deposition and inflammation in the body). I think a lot of our coronary risk would decrease with more Zone or Atkins type eating habits, and if we got our bodies moving, though I realize that's difficult for people with biomechanical difficulties (I'm one of those) and/or chronic pain.

Perhaps your Mom's doctor knows the truth?

http://www.cmellc.com/geriatrictimes/g040618.html
All along the cholesterol path, since Lovastatin was first marketed, there have been observations that the elderly have a shorter lifespan when using statins. Death from all causes increases with use of these drugs in the older patient.

In fact a meta-analysis from Canada found no benefits for women.

The drug companies typically massage their data, and only include middle aged men of high risk in their studies.

After 30 days on a statin, with muscle aches and cramps, I switched to Zetia (a non-statin) at the suggestion of Mrs D - and brought my levels down from 230-240 range to 130-140 range.
That was about 4 years ago, or so - and I've been taking it ever since, with no side effects whatsoever. I did have to argue with my doc and demand that she allow me to try it initially, as she is a true believer in the positive work of statins on cholesterol levels. But I did change her mind on that.

glenntaj said: Yes, I think sugar is the biggest enemy! If the U.S. government would stop subsidizing corn, I betcha we would see a huge drop in obesity as a result.

And that's what I have against the Ornish diet aside from not ever being able to eat out or at someone else's house--it doesn't seem to limit sugars at all from what I can see. A friend gave me an Ornish-approved recipe for sweet potatoes with a cup of brown sugar in it! How can that be good? And avoiding olives and nuts? Throwing the baby out with the bathwater, I say!

But Atkins seems to me a little extreme also. Counting carbs in green vegetables while eating all the butter and bacon you want? That can't be right either, can it? I've never looked closely at The Zone. If that's a more moderate approach, I might think it's a better way to go.

Glenn, I agree with your premise totally. I think the cholesterol thing is over hyped....They do keep lowering the levels, so much so that even a trained endurance athlete has trouble meeting the cut offs.

Same thing with glucose, with blood pressure etc. Seems pharma may be wanting us to take pills to control every aspect of our homeostasis. I am not convinced all of this contributes substantially to longevity or quality of life.

Eh, I am not sold on all the statins. Hubby takes one, but, if he loses the weight, I know his cholesterol will go down. (I am not sold on most meds these days....I have an adverse reaction to every single one.)

I miss exercise, hugely. It is not in the picture these days.

JoanB, I agree on the high fructose corn syrup thing. Then again, we DO have choices as to what we put in our mouths. (I do rebound healthy eating....I fall off the wagon way too much and bite for the 'bad' food) If it was simply not available, I would be better off.

Over the years, The Zone has been used for metabolic syndrome and type II diabetes. I think it is the best diet out there.

It controls inflammation, and allows a good balance.