cholesterol

x-no-archive: yes

Jackie Patti said:

Davis doesn't push drugs. He does prescribe statins to a few patients,
but much less often and at lower doses, than is commonly done and always
prescribes CoQ10 along with.

I understand that, but those numbers were promulgated by those who do
sell drugs. Those goals are totally incompatible with good health, IMO,
and based upon stroke, suicide and depression studies.

Quoted message said:

Davis gets most patients to his goals with diet, exercise and
supplements like fish oil, vitamin D3, l-arginine and niacin. He thinks
drugs and surgeries are way overprescribed and criticizes his collegues
heavily. He thinks about the mainstream AHA advice about how Bernstein
thinks of the ADA advice.

Yabbut, those lipid goals are smack dab at the heart of the mainstream
advice, just his gimmick differs.

Quoted message said:

He doesn't actually prescribe 60/60/60, but prefers you get your entire
lipoprotein panel and stuff like lipoprotein(a), homocyesteine, etc.
rather than just LDL, HDL and triglycerides. The 60/60/60 thang is just
recommended if you can't get more detailed testing to see if you have
primarily the good LDL and make sure you don't have the bad HDL, etc. He
states clearly that LDL over 60 is kewl if it's the light fluffy stuff,
and HDL over 60 isn't good if it's the one bad subfraction. He gets
very technical about which patterns are good vs. bad and finds a lot of
people's primary problem is along the lines of elevated lipoprotein(a)
or low serum vitamin D - stuff most doctors don't even test for.
However, if *all* you have to go on is LDL, HDL and triglycerides, he
says aim for 60/60/60.

I dunno how absurdly low 60/60/60 actually is. My LDL was under 60 when
still hospitalized after my heart attack - the absurd bit is that they
put me on a statin anyways when it was obvious my LDL had not caused the
blockage. My triglycerides weren't below 60 nor my HDL above 60 - have
to see what turns up next month at my next lipid panel, hopefully there
will be some improvement.

Jackie, numbers much higher than that are associated with extreme
longevity and large, bouyant LDL. Take the Ashkenazi Jews with LDL over
300 and extremely long lives.

I think he's barking up the wrong tree, just using different notes.

Susan

Jackie Patti said:

Ophelia said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Ophelia wrote:

> Oh dear. You will think I am terribly dim🙁 I know what LDL and
> HDL are! TGL is an unknown!
>
>
I'm sorry, my bad. TGL = triglycerides.

That is something different then? Will my doc have that on the
sheet too?

Yes, triglycerides is just the amount of fat floating in your blood.
And yes, your doctor will probably have that too.

Thank you! I am taking notes.

Jackie Patti said:

Roger Zoul said:

Don't forget you're paying for that work, one way or another. They
work for you. You're not causing problems for them to ask for your
lab work.

They copy the stuff for each other all the time. All my labs get sent
to my internist's office, who faxes them to my cardiologist, who faxes
summaries of our appointment back to the internist, etc.

It's not a big deal to ask them to send me a copy also.

Oh I shall ask for a copy! If it is not possible I shall write it all down!

Susan said:

Jackie Patti said:

When you get a copy of the lab resuls, it'll say what they consider
normal.

This isn't something people agree on. For instance, most doctors are
happy if they get your LDL under 100, whereas Davis wants it under 60.

Those numbers are absurdly low, set to sell drugs not assure good health.

Davis doesn't push drugs. He does prescribe statins to a few patients,
but much less often and at lower doses, than is commonly done and always
prescribes CoQ10 along with.

Davis gets most patients to his goals with diet, exercise and
supplements like fish oil, vitamin D3, l-arginine and niacin. He thinks
drugs and surgeries are way overprescribed and criticizes his collegues
heavily. He thinks about the mainstream AHA advice about how Bernstein
thinks of the ADA advice.

He doesn't actually prescribe 60/60/60, but prefers you get your entire
lipoprotein panel and stuff like lipoprotein(a), homocyesteine, etc.
rather than just LDL, HDL and triglycerides. The 60/60/60 thang is just
recommended if you can't get more detailed testing to see if you have
primarily the good LDL and make sure you don't have the bad HDL, etc.
He states clearly that LDL over 60 is kewl if it's the light fluffy
stuff, and HDL over 60 isn't good if it's the one bad subfraction. He
gets very technical about which patterns are good vs. bad and finds a
lot of people's primary problem is along the lines of elevated
lipoprotein(a) or low serum vitamin D - stuff most doctors don't even
test for. However, if *all* you have to go on is LDL, HDL and
triglycerides, he says aim for 60/60/60.

I dunno how absurdly low 60/60/60 actually is. My LDL was under 60 when
still hospitalized after my heart attack - the absurd bit is that they
put me on a statin anyways when it was obvious my LDL had not caused the
blockage. My triglycerides weren't below 60 nor my HDL above 60 - have
to see what turns up next month at my next lipid panel, hopefully there
will be some improvement.

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

Ophelia said:

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Ophelia said:

Oh dear. You will think I am terribly dim🙁 I know what LDL and
HDL are! TGL is an unknown!

I'm sorry, my bad. TGL = triglycerides.

That is something different then? Will my doc have that on the sheet too?

Yes, triglycerides is just the amount of fat floating in your blood. And
yes, your doctor will probably have that too.

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

Roger Zoul said:

Don't forget you're paying for that work, one way or another. They work for
you. You're not causing problems for them to ask for your lab work.

They copy the stuff for each other all the time. All my labs get sent
to my internist's office, who faxes them to my cardiologist, who faxes
summaries of our appointment back to the internist, etc.

It's not a big deal to ask them to send me a copy also.

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

x-no-archive: yes

Jackie Patti said:

I'd disagree on several counts.

First, I've seen the guy change his mind when he sees other data. Some
of his current recommendations on his site and blog differ from some
stuff in his book. He's not spouting even his own party line, but
actively learning.

I'm not saying he's not actively learning, just that he's got no
foundation for those recommendations outside of what's been promulgated
by mainstream science.

Quoted message said:

And second, he actually measures the blockages in his patients after
treatment and sees that they've decreased. That was the first question
on my mind after the bypass... how to unclog my arteries.

Ornish documented decreased blockages, and his recommendations also
suck. One endpoint does not mean health and risks are improving overall.

Quoted message said:

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL rather
than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

When you don't have a full lipoprotein test though, you have to aim at
what you do have.

If you have high HDL and low TGL, you can extrapolate that LDL is
bouyant. Still, it's a poor predictor.

Quoted message said:

I'd not suggest a statin to get LDL down from 100 to 60; if the person
was low-carbing, I'd especially not think so since the best guess is
that increases the good LDL.

But I'd also not suggest anyone think an LDL of 300 is OK unless they
*know* that from testing how much is the good fluffy stuff.

I think more information is always desirable. But I'd also point out
that Jenny, who used to post here, had a dad with over 300 LDL and he
lived to 95; it was the large, fluffy stuff. Measuring and treating to
LDL targets has been a major distraction from health promotion, IMO.

Quoted message said:

If my LDL that high, I'd try fish oil, vitamin D3, niacin, diet and
exercise for a year first. If that didn't get it down, and I couldn't
get anyone to do lipoprotein testing to verify it was the good stuff,
I'd want Zetia or Werchol - cause my best guess is I'm not an Ashkenazi
Jew.

If my LDL were that high, I'd try to find out what my body was
compensating for by raising it, and treat the root cause.

Susan

Jackie Patti said:

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL
rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!!

Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie???

x-no-archive: yes

Ophelia said:

Jackie Patti said:

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL
rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!!

Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie???

VLDL and TGLs are the real baddies.

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Ophelia said:

Jackie Patti said:

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL
rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!!

Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie???

VLDL and TGLs are the real baddies.

Ok.... thanks!

Susan said:

Jackie Patti said:

Davis gets most patients to his goals with diet, exercise and
supplements like fish oil, vitamin D3, l-arginine and niacin. He
thinks drugs and surgeries are way overprescribed and criticizes his
collegues heavily. He thinks about the mainstream AHA advice about
how Bernstein thinks of the ADA advice.

Yabbut, those lipid goals are smack dab at the heart of the mainstream
advice, just his gimmick differs.

I'd disagree on several counts.

First, I've seen the guy change his mind when he sees other data. Some
of his current recommendations on his site and blog differ from some
stuff in his book. He's not spouting even his own party line, but
actively learning.

And second, he actually measures the blockages in his patients after
treatment and sees that they've decreased. That was the first question
on my mind after the bypass... how to unclog my arteries.

Quoted message said:

Jackie, numbers much higher than that are associated with extreme
longevity and large, bouyant LDL. Take the Ashkenazi Jews with LDL over
300 and extremely long lives.

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL rather
than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

When you don't have a full lipoprotein test though, you have to aim at
what you do have.

I'd not suggest a statin to get LDL down from 100 to 60; if the person
was low-carbing, I'd especially not think so since the best guess is
that increases the good LDL.

But I'd also not suggest anyone think an LDL of 300 is OK unless they
*know* that from testing how much is the good fluffy stuff.

If my LDL that high, I'd try fish oil, vitamin D3, niacin, diet and
exercise for a year first. If that didn't get it down, and I couldn't
get anyone to do lipoprotein testing to verify it was the good stuff,
I'd want Zetia or Werchol - cause my best guess is I'm not an Ashkenazi Jew.

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

Here is something that may be of value to you out of Gary Taubes "Good
Calories, Bad Calories" on page 447... discussing the reluctance of some
doctors to tolerate low carb eating.......

"..... The same is true for the occasional elevation of cholesterol that
will occur with fat loss -- a condition known as transient
hypercholesterolemia -- and that is a consequence of the fact that we
store cholesterol along with fat in our fat cells. When fatty acids are
mobilized [released], the cholesterol is released as well, and thus
serum levels of cholesterol can spike. The existing evidence suggests
that this effect will vanish with successful weight loss, regardless of
the saturated-gat content of the diet. Nonetheless, it is often cited as
another reason to avoid carbohydrate-restricted diets and to withdraw a
patient immediately from the diet should such a thing be observed, under
the mistaken impression that this is a chronic effect of a relatively
fat-rich diet."

So, if you have recently restarted this low carb eating and the tests
show a peak of cholesterol, it might be due to the effect above.

On the other hand, if you have been low carb for a real long time, this
can likely be ignored.

Ophelia said:

Jackie Patti said:

Though I have seen a lot of folks have elevated LDL for some period of
time - it seems a common side effect initially. But it also seems to
go away after a while. I'm pretty sure Ophelia has been here a
while, so I assumed a long-term low-carb thing.

It was! Then the last couple of years, as I explained I had surgery and
infection.

I was doing well until I had to go on the scale🙁

I have been struggling recently. I have been very stressed because we are
moving down to England. My So is now working down there and I must give up
my job, get the house sold and move down. I am getting used to the idea
now but I hate leaving my work🙂

Quoted message said:

Still, SloNiacin does lower LDL as well as raise HDL and is a heck of
a lot cheaper than Zetia or Werchol. While I think niacin is a drug,
not a vitmain, when taken at the doses that work for LDL and HDL
improvement, it obviously beats the heck out of a statin. SloNiacin
is the form Davis recommends as least likely to cause liver problems.

Quoted message said:

Ophelia, another point... did you get your lipids done while fasting?

Yes it was.

Quoted message said:

Cause if not, your triglycerides could be high cause of that - it's
supposed to be a fasting test.

Thank you!

x-no-archive: yes

Jackie Patti said:

Susan said:

I'm not saying he's not actively learning, just that he's got no
foundation for those recommendations outside of what's been
promulgated by mainstream science.

From *science* - yes, I'd expect a good doctor to be basing his work on
science. As you know, mainstream *medicine* doesn't necessarily do that.

Point well taken.

Quoted message said:

I don't think mainstream medicine has a lot to say about HDL2b vs. HDL3a
vs. HDL-P particles. I would seriously doubt most doctors, even
cardiologists, ever test for them.

True.

Quoted message said:

True.

By the way Ophelia, you want to ask the doctor if you had a direct LDL
measurement.

The calculated LDL values are notoriously inaccurate and definetly not
something to base a drug decision on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If my LDL that high, I'd try fish oil, vitamin D3, niacin, diet and
exercise for a year first. If that didn't get it down, and I
couldn't get anyone to do lipoprotein testing to verify it was the
good stuff, I'd want Zetia or Werchol - cause my best guess is I'm
not an Ashkenazi Jew.

If my LDL were that high, I'd try to find out what my body was
compensating for by raising it, and treat the root cause.

Maybe. It might be genetic though.

Seems some people just have really high LDL, just as high lp(a) often
runs in families.

Yabbut, not necessarily in isolation. My LDL shot back up when my
adrenals were suppressed. You can figure out why, I know. :-)

Susan

Ophelia said:

Jackie Patti said:

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL
rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!!

Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie???

They keep changing the rules on ya.

First, it was just total cholesterol, and it was all bad.

Then it was LDL and HDL, with the LDL being bad and the HDL being good.

But if you get even more detailed testing, they can break that down into
even further - there's various types of LDL and HDL. Some of those have
"good" LDL bits and "bad" HDL bits, just to add a further layer of
complexity.

You probably just had a regular lipid panel, so don't need to worry
about the details of lioportien testing.

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

Susan said:

I'm not saying he's not actively learning, just that he's got no
foundation for those recommendations outside of what's been promulgated
by mainstream science.

From *science* - yes, I'd expect a good doctor to be basing his work on
science. As you know, mainstream *medicine* doesn't necessarily do that.

I don't think mainstream medicine has a lot to say about HDL2b vs. HDL3a
vs. HDL-P particles. I would seriously doubt most doctors, even
cardiologists, ever test for them.

Quoted message said:

I think more information is always desirable. But I'd also point out
that Jenny, who used to post here, had a dad with over 300 LDL and he
lived to 95; it was the large, fluffy stuff. Measuring and treating to
LDL targets has been a major distraction from health promotion, IMO.

True.

By the way Ophelia, you want to ask the doctor if you had a direct LDL
measurement.

The calculated LDL values are notoriously inaccurate and definetly not
something to base a drug decision on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If my LDL that high, I'd try fish oil, vitamin D3, niacin, diet and
exercise for a year first. If that didn't get it down, and I couldn't
get anyone to do lipoprotein testing to verify it was the good stuff,
I'd want Zetia or Werchol - cause my best guess is I'm not an
Ashkenazi Jew.

If my LDL were that high, I'd try to find out what my body was
compensating for by raising it, and treat the root cause.

Maybe. It might be genetic though.

Seems some people just have really high LDL, just as high lp(a) often
runs in families.

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

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Ophelia said:

Jackie Patti said:

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL
rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!!

Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie???

VLDL and TGLs are the real baddies.

And IDL. And Lp(a).

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

Susan said:

Yabbut, not necessarily in isolation. My LDL shot back up when my
adrenals were suppressed. You can figure out why, I know. :-)

LOL!

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

Jim said:

Here is something that may be of value to you out of Gary Taubes "Good
Calories, Bad Calories" on page 447... discussing the reluctance of
some doctors to tolerate low carb eating.......

"..... The same is true for the occasional elevation of cholesterol
that will occur with fat loss -- a condition known as transient
hypercholesterolemia -- and that is a consequence of the fact that we
store cholesterol along with fat in our fat cells. When fatty acids
are mobilized [released], the cholesterol is released as well, and
thus serum levels of cholesterol can spike. The existing evidence
suggests that this effect will vanish with successful weight loss,
regardless of the saturated-gat content of the diet. Nonetheless, it
is often cited as another reason to avoid carbohydrate-restricted
diets and to withdraw a patient immediately from the diet should such
a thing be observed, under the mistaken impression that this is a
chronic effect of a relatively fat-rich diet."

So, if you have recently restarted this low carb eating and the tests
show a peak of cholesterol, it might be due to the effect above.

On the other hand, if you have been low carb for a real long time,
this can likely be ignored.

Many thanks Jim!!! That has given me plenty to think about!!

Quoted message said:

Ophelia said:

Jackie Patti said:

Though I have seen a lot of folks have elevated LDL for some period
of time - it seems a common side effect initially. But it also
seems to go away after a while. I'm pretty sure Ophelia has been
here a while, so I assumed a long-term low-carb thing.

It was! Then the last couple of years, as I explained I had
surgery and infection.

I was doing well until I had to go on the scale🙁

I have been struggling recently. I have been very stressed because
we are moving down to England. My So is now working down there and
I must give up my job, get the house sold and move down. I am
getting used to the idea now but I hate leaving my work🙂

Quoted message said:

Still, SloNiacin does lower LDL as well as raise HDL and is a heck
of a lot cheaper than Zetia or Werchol. While I think niacin is a
drug, not a vitmain, when taken at the doses that work for LDL and
HDL improvement, it obviously beats the heck out of a statin. SloNiacin
is the form Davis recommends as least likely to cause
liver problems.

Quoted message said:

Ophelia, another point... did you get your lipids done while
fasting?

Yes it was.

Quoted message said:

Cause if not, your triglycerides could be high cause of that - it's
supposed to be a fasting test.

Thank you!

Jackie Patti said:

Ophelia said:

Jackie Patti said:

With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL
rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it.

Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!!

Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie???

They keep changing the rules on ya.

First, it was just total cholesterol, and it was all bad.

Then it was LDL and HDL, with the LDL being bad and the HDL being
good.
But if you get even more detailed testing, they can break that down
into even further - there's various types of LDL and HDL. Some of
those have "good" LDL bits and "bad" HDL bits, just to add a further
layer of complexity.

You probably just had a regular lipid panel, so don't need to worry
about the details of lioportien testing.

Phew! Thanks🙂)

Jackie Patti said:

Susan said:

I'm not saying he's not actively learning, just that he's got no
foundation for those recommendations outside of what's been
promulgated by mainstream science.

From *science* - yes, I'd expect a good doctor to be basing his work
on science. As you know, mainstream *medicine* doesn't necessarily
do that.
I don't think mainstream medicine has a lot to say about HDL2b vs.
HDL3a vs. HDL-P particles. I would seriously doubt most doctors, even
cardiologists, ever test for them.

Quoted message said:

I think more information is always desirable. But I'd also point out
that Jenny, who used to post here, had a dad with over 300 LDL and he
lived to 95; it was the large, fluffy stuff. Measuring and treating
to LDL targets has been a major distraction from health promotion,
IMO.

True.

By the way Ophelia, you want to ask the doctor if you had a direct LDL
measurement.

I will! LOL she is going to wonder where I am getting all this from🙂)

Quoted message said:

The calculated LDL values are notoriously inaccurate and definetly not
something to base a drug decision on.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If my LDL that high, I'd try fish oil, vitamin D3, niacin, diet and
exercise for a year first. If that didn't get it down, and I
couldn't get anyone to do lipoprotein testing to verify it was the
good stuff, I'd want Zetia or Werchol - cause my best guess is I'm
not an Ashkenazi Jew.

If my LDL were that high, I'd try to find out what my body was
compensating for by raising it, and treat the root cause.

Maybe. It might be genetic though.

Seems some people just have really high LDL, just as high lp(a) often
runs in families.