cholesterol

Roger Zoul wrote:
Ophelia wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote:
Ophelia wrote:
Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results,
I was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of
the cholesterol.

did you not ask for your numbers over the phone? If not, why?

Because I know nothing about it and I didn't know I should


Well, please find out and get a complete breakdown: LDL, VLDL, HDL,
and Trigs.

Ok. Please can you explain what they are?



How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me
medication?

Help appreciated please.

Just say no. In room for improvement in LC diet and exercise?

Please explain?

Well, if you've been sloppy with LC or not exercising, then your
numbers may not be as good as they can be.

I have not been exercising. In the last two years I have had both knees
replaced. With the first one I was ill for quite a long time because I had
a serious infection, and I was on IV antibiotics for 3 months



Or, as others indicated,
if you haven't been doing LC for that long, perhaps there is still
come improvement to come. However, some doctors just put you on those
drugs at the slightest elevation in your numbers.

I have heard of statins and I am afraid of them.

In the meantime,
half the people dying of heart attacks have normal chol numbers. The
question then is whether or not CHOL is even a meaningful indicator
if risk. It's one topic of Taubes book, in fact. Why bother with
drugs which can be potentially impactful on your life when CHOL is
not even an important issue anyway?

sycochkn wrote:
she is not allowing you to know the results without paying for an
office visit. She is likely to want you to take medication rather
than diet and exercise because then you dont have to do office
visits. Doctors do not do preventive medicine, insurance does not pay
for it.
Bob

Hi Bob, I am in UK. I do have private insurance but only for trauma

Ophelia wrote:
:: Roger Zoul wrote:
::: Ophelia wrote:
::::: Roger Zoul wrote:
:::::: Ophelia wrote:
:::::::: Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for
:::::::: results, I was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor
:::::::: because of the cholesterol.
::::::
:::::: did you not ask for your numbers over the phone? If not, why?
:::::
::::: Because I know nothing about it and I didn't know I should
:::::
:::
::: Well, please find out and get a complete breakdown: LDL, VLDL, HDL,
::: and Trigs.
::
:: Ok. Please can you explain what they are?
::

I guess they have the same names in the UK....Low density Lipoprotein, very
low density lipoprotein, and high density lipoprotein, and triglycerides.

These days, the claim is that is the ratios that are important....for
example, Total/HDL...the smaller the better. (You want more of your total
to come from HDL than from LDL, supposely). Here's a page:

http://www.pro2services.com/Lectures...s/a5lipids.htm

::
::
:::::::: How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me
:::::::: medication?
::::::::
:::::::: Help appreciated please.
::::::
:::::: Just say no. In room for improvement in LC diet and exercise?
:::::
::::: Please explain?
:::
::: Well, if you've been sloppy with LC or not exercising, then your
::: numbers may not be as good as they can be.
::
:: I have not been exercising. In the last two years I have had both
:: knees replaced. With the first one I was ill for quite a long time
:: because I had a serious infection, and I was on IV antibiotics for 3
:: months

I see. Then diet is very, very important for you, O, unless you can find a
way to exercise.

::
::
::
:: Or, as others indicated,
::: if you haven't been doing LC for that long, perhaps there is still
::: come improvement to come. However, some doctors just put you on
::: those drugs at the slightest elevation in your numbers.
::
:: I have heard of statins and I am afraid of them.

Me too.

::
:: In the meantime,
::: half the people dying of heart attacks have normal chol numbers. The
::: question then is whether or not CHOL is even a meaningful indicator
::: if risk. It's one topic of Taubes book, in fact. Why bother with
::: drugs which can be potentially impactful on your life when CHOL is
::: not even an important issue anyway?

Keep repeating to yourself, this is not a diet, this is the way I eat and I
will eat this way for the rest of my life.

Ophelia wrote:
|
| Oh heck, I don't understand
|
| btw I have been up and down with the diet. ashamed
|
| I know this sound stupid and I almost certainly is, but I can't stick
| to it if I know the numbers on the scale. I was doing great (24lbs
| in two months). I was called to see the nurse at the asthma clinic.
| She made me go on the scale. I tried not to look but couldn't help
| myself. That is when I saw how much I had lost. I went off the diet
| big time((((((((((((((
|
| I am back on now but daren't look
|
| As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue
|
| O
| needing help!

"Ophelia" wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:
"Ophelia" wrote:

Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I
was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the
cholesterol.

How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me
medication?

In the 1993 Atkins edition is a statement that after 6+ months, 80%
see better numbers. In the 2001 Atkins edition is a statement that
after 2+ months, a majority see better numbers.

... Depends on
how long you've been low carbing ...

I know this sound stupid and I almost certainly is, but I can't stick to it
if I know the numbers on the scale.

How often should you step on the scale - Whenever you are not
emotional about it. if you get emotional every time, then never step
on the scale but use a tape measure instead.

As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue

You don't know how long you've been low carbing? Okay. If you
fell off the wagon it's hard to tell if you started back when you
started
or if you started more recently.

What Dr Atkins meant as far as I can tell - If you started under 6
months ago you can't expect your numbers to be good. So mark
6 months after your start date on your calendar. That's when the
cholesterol numbers will start to mak sense. Before then, the
numbers are meaningless.

Susan writes:

Jackie Patti wrote:

Generally, low-carb reduces LDL (bad cholesterol) and triglycerides.
It doesn't do such a good job of raising HDL, exercise is better for
raising HDL than diet is. Ideal numbers are LDL and triglycerides
under 60 and HDL over 60, but usually doctors don't shoot for that
strict.

Jackie, my experience, and quite a few studies demonstrate that low
carb, at least in the first six months, raises LDL or leaves it the
same, while also raising HDL.

That's what I got from Taubes and Eades: On low-carb, triglycerides go
way down and the HDL/LDL ratio improves (these are the things that now
matter), but LDL and total cholesterol may rise a little, especially in
the first few months, and especially if you eat a lot of saturated fat.
That's why saturated fat got a bad reputation in the first place -- all
they were measuring back then was total cholesterol, and saturated fats
made it higher.

There's also research that shows that the density of your LDL (and VLDL)
in particular has a strong correlation with disease, and a low-carb diet
tends to make the LDL particles lighter and "fluffier," which is good.

No one should let a doctor prescribe anything for cholesterol without
reading Taubes's book first, at least the cholesterol section. What's
$20 for a book, up against the price of a doctor visit, prescription
drugs, and your life? Before you take a doctor's advice, understand the
history of where that advice is coming from. Maybe you'll agree with
the doctor, maybe you won't; but don't go in there clueless.



--
Aaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz

"Aaron Baugher" wrote


No one should let a doctor prescribe anything for cholesterol without
reading Taubes's book first, at least the cholesterol section. What's
$20 for a book, up against the price of a doctor visit, prescription
drugs, and your life? Before you take a doctor's advice, understand the
history of where that advice is coming from. Maybe you'll agree with
the doctor, maybe you won't; but don't go in there clueless.

Exactly.

"Jackie Patti" wrote in message
...
Roger Zoul wrote:

Well, if you've been sloppy with LC or not exercising, then your numbers
may not be as good as they can be. Or, as others indicated, if you
haven't been doing LC for that long, perhaps there is still come
improvement to come. However, some doctors just put you on those drugs at
the slightest elevation in your numbers. In the meantime, half the
people dying of heart attacks have normal chol numbers. The question then
is whether or not CHOL is even a meaningful indicator if risk. It's one
topic of Taubes book, in fact. Why bother with drugs which can be
potentially impactful on your life when CHOL is not even an important
issue anyway?

I agree that cholesterol itself doesn't matter much. However, the
lipoproteins that carry it around do seem to matter.

LDL has two components, the small dense particles and the large fluffy ones.
The latter are good. LCers then to have more of those, driving LDL higher
than otherwise.

Of course, this crap is being made up as we type, so I tend not to put much
stock in any of it, even though my HDL has been between 87 and 100+ (with
lots of exercise).

Ophelia wrote:

As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue

You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High.

And you want triglycerides to be low also, but it doesn't have as good a
mneumonic.


--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/

Roger Zoul wrote:

Well, if you've been sloppy with LC or not exercising, then your numbers may
not be as good as they can be. Or, as others indicated, if you haven't been
doing LC for that long, perhaps there is still come improvement to come.
However, some doctors just put you on those drugs at the slightest elevation
in your numbers. In the meantime, half the people dying of heart attacks
have normal chol numbers. The question then is whether or not CHOL is even a
meaningful indicator if risk. It's one topic of Taubes book, in fact. Why
bother with drugs which can be potentially impactful on your life when CHOL
is not even an important issue anyway?

I agree that cholesterol itself doesn't matter much. However, the
lipoproteins that carry it around do seem to matter.

--
http://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/