24 replies to this topic

[shifter]

My wife has a high cholesterol, total measured at 8.3 (or 320.9 mg/dl). The LDL part was around 5.5 (212.6 mg/dl). It's not the fault of her diet and was probably passed on from her father who also has high cholesterol. (similar results)

 

They are both 100% chinese and not fat/overweight (in fact he is very skinny). His diet has a typical chinese diet, but she has some western influences (some parts for the better like not cooking with so much oil!)

 

I'm helping her to have a diet rich in fibre and foods known to help lower cholesterol but want to know what else can help besides statins (she is breastfeeding at the moment so cant take them).

 

She has a lot of oats, almonds, omega 3 fish oil and other fibre mixes such as psyllium husks, linseed etc. I've told her to not eat the egg yolks, and only eat lean meat. Switched from dairy cows milk to oat milk.

 

Any other foods that can knock it down??

 

The other question is, what if her diet contained next to NO cholesterol. I know the liver will produce if the diet was not enough, but is her problem that it over produces regardless of her blood level? If she went vegan for example (which she wont) would that knock it right back? Or would her liver keep pushing it higher.

 

 

If she goes on statins eventually I'll insist she supplement on CoQ10. Is there anything else that needs to be compensated for?

 

The side effect of statins is 'muscle pain'. But what is that indicitive of? Doctors dont seem to phased by it other than your muscles may hurt but is there something sinister going on as to why your muscles hurt on statins? What are statins doing to them.

 

 

Is Red Yeast Rice a better alternative or should that be avoided for the same reasons we dont like statins in the first place (given it has the same ingredient does it do the same 'harm').

[scottknl]

Getting control of your cholesterol is probably a function of your diet alone -- not genetics.  People who have familial high cholesterol often have triglycerides measured in the 1000's and many family members die in their 40's, so there's no chance that you would miss knowing that you had this.  You didn't provide the full set of results for you cholesterol panel, but I'll let you know what I've done in hopes that it can be helpful to you.

 

I had total cholesterol of 293 mg/dl when I was in my mid 30's.  Several experiments with types of diets provided me with higher TGL and lower HDL when I ate a high carb diet,  and higher LDL and stable HDL when I ate a high fat low carb diet ( all of which was done prior to gaining any real knowledge of nutrition).   It seemed impossible to get all the numbers TC, LDL, HDL and TG correct all at the same time.  My body weight was between 185 and 205 lbs during this period for a height of 6'2".  My high carb diet had me consuming lots of oatmeal every day and my cholesterol tests were awful.  I was taking a cholesterol binding resin and supplementing with red rice yeast extract too.  I still had awful cholesterol test results.  Taking drugs and supplements to compensate for a poor diet is doomed to failure as my experience proved.  If you correct your diet, then you correct the actual problem that is causing the symptoms of bad test results and bad health.

 

Eventually I read a study of overweight women who adjusted their omega-3:omega-6 ratio intake for their diets and normalized all their cholesterol numbers.  So I put this into action in my own lifestyle and also initiated a mild calorie restriction diet.  I felt a lot better after a couple of months, so I dropped the meat and dairy out of my diet too after reading that vegetarians and vegans had better cholesterol numbers and health on average.  After another couple of months I felt even better after I started supplementing with vitamin B12.  Eventually after 6 months of diet and modest exercise I lost 40 lbs and my total cholesterol dropped to 138 mg/dl.  Better still my HDL jumped up from 28  to 53 mg/dl and my TGL dropped from 230 mg/dl to 81 mg/dl.  In other words, my cholesterol numbers all normalized at the same time.  Here are the things I did to achieve this:

1) track everything I ate in cron-o-meter software (web site) and weigh all food and drinks.

2) increase the quality of the food I ate by shooting for maximum nutrition with least calories.

3) reduced my cholesterol intake in my daily diet to < 200 mg of cholesterol.  Almost nothing.

4) balanced my food and supplements so that I was getting all vitamins and minerals > or = RDA/RDI

5) changed the balance of food items to provide Omega-6:Omega-3 ratio of 5:1 or less.

6) slowly reduced the calories from 2400 to about 1750 over a period of 2 or 3 months. 25-50 cals reduced per wk.

7) eliminate junk food like soda, cookies and cakes

8) eliminate breakfast cereals in favor of a combination of grains, nuts, cocoa, beans and ground flaxseeds.

9) strictly control the intake of nuts to keep my omega fatty acid balance correct

10) modest exercise 2 or 3 times a week

11) vastly increased my fiber intake from vegetables by a factor of 3-4 compared to my prior diet.

 

I started exactly 5 years ago today and I feel fantastically healthy and pretty much eat the same diet during each of the week days, and a slightly modified diet on the weekends.  I still measure the amounts of food, but don't always record it.  If I overeat one day, I just try to get back on track the next day.  

Edited by scottknl, 23 June 2014 - 04:12 AM.

[timar]

Getting control of your cholesterol is probably a function of your diet alone -- not genetics.

 

This is nonsense. There are well characterized forms of familial hypercholesterolaemia, resulting from an overt gene defect (most often in the LDLR gene) which are impossible to fully compensate for even with high-dose statins, but there are many other, less catastrophic mutations, which may or may not be compensated for with lifestyle interventions alone. Even if you are fortunate enough not to suffer from any of those rare mutations, your blood lipids are the result of a complex interplay between genetics and lifestyle, most importantly diet and exercise. The complexety of this relationship becomes apparent when people respond very differently to certain dietary interventions, sometimes even diametrically opposed, as it is the case with ApoE genotypes and the response to dietary fats and alcohol.

 

It is certainly helpful for the OP or other people struggling with high cholesterol, to share with them your own successful experience and they are likely to benefit from many of the measures you listed above. However, as you did, everyone has to find the assortment of lifestyle interventions that fits his or her own genetic requirements. Contraty to what some vegan diet gurus are preaching, there is no single, ideal dietary blueprint that will produce an optimum lipid profile for all people.

 

 

Eventually I read a study of overweight women who adjusted their omega-3:omega-6 ratio intake for their diets and normalized all their cholesterol numbers.  So I put this into action in my own lifestyle and also initiated a mild calorie restriction diet.  I felt a lot better after a couple of months, so I dropped the meat and dairy out of my diet too after reading that vegetarians and vegans had better cholesterol numbers and health on average.  After another couple of months I felt even better after I started supplementing with vitamin B12.  Eventually after 6 months of diet and modest exercise I lost 40 lbs and my total cholesterol dropped to 138 mg/dl.  Better still my HDL jumped up from 28  to 53 mg/dl and my TGL dropped from 230 mg/dl to 81 mg/dl.

 

Can you reference that study? I never heard that the omega-3/6 ratio has any significant influence on cholesterol and it seems unlikely from everything I know about its biochemistry. Yet I wouldn't exclude that for some unapparent reason there may be a benefit for some people. Anyway, I think the caloric restriction, excercise and weight loss were likely the major contributing factors to your success.

Edited by timar, 23 June 2014 - 09:12 AM.

[pamojja]

Take a look at http://www.cureality.../cureality-diet

 

My approach to better cholesterol has been different. Having been a vegetarian for 30 years I increased dietary cholesterol from 70 mg/d to above 300, total fat intake from 70 g/d to about 160 (saturated and monos only), and decreased carbohydrate intake from 160 g/d down to about 60.

 

Also after 5 years my TC, HDL, TG and LDL each improved about 40%. Which just shows with what different preconditions we have to deal with here.

 

In my case caloric restriction, exercise and weight loss hasn't been even a tiny factor. Have always been very active and would have no weight to loose.

Edited by pamojja, 23 June 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[shifter]

Okay so here is her full breakdown

HDL = 2.1 (81.2 mg/dl)
LDL = 5.8 (224.3 mg/dl)
VLDL= 0.4 (15.4 mg/dl)
TRIG= 0.9 (79.7 mg/dl)

Apparently according to the doctor these results look highly suspicious for familiar hyperlipidaemia and there was no way diet could lower it by any great deal unless she eats sand or rocks. He said (in jest I hope) it would do her good to go back to live in China because our diet here in Australia is bad and leads to obesity and when he was in China he never saw 1 fat person (must think obesity and cholesterol are directly related).

Thanks for your advice scottknl, I'll take as much on board as I can get her to do. Won't be starting statins any time soon and she's not keen on a medication for the rest of her life.

Edited by shifter, 23 June 2014 - 09:50 AM.

[pamojja]

 I never heard that the omega-3/6 ratio has any significant influence on cholesterol and it seems unlikely from everything I know about its biochemistry. Yet I wouldn't exclude that for some unapparent reason there may be a benefit for some people. Anyway, I think the caloric restriction, excercise and weight loss were likely the m

 

Omega-3 reduces triglycerides, which in turn reduces small dense LDL, the more problematic type. Triglycerides usually also drop by taking care of postprandial blood glucose rises and adjusting carbohydrate intake accordingly.

[timar]

Okay so here is her full breakdown

HDL = 2.1 (81.2 mg/dl)
LDL = 5.8 (224.3 mg/dl)
VLDL= 0.4 (15.4 mg/dl)
TRIG= 0.9 (79.7 mg/dl)

 

I wouldn't be overly worried by those numbers, as her VLDL and triglycerides are fine and her HDL is excellent, possibly high enough to fully compensate for the LDL (according to this recent study). However, if her LDL doesn't improve by any dietary means I would suggest to try a statin after weaning off her baby. It couldn't hurt to get the LDL at least down to the mid 100-range, as long as the she doesn't experience any serious adverse effects from the drug (which is unlikely, particularly if she takes some CoQ10 with it).

 

Omega-3 reduces triglycerides, which in turn reduces small dense LDL, the more problematic type. Triglycerides usually also drop by taking care of postprandial blood glucose rises and adjusting carbohydrate intake accordingly.

 

Sure, but this is only true for long chain omega-3s and unlikely to show up in a standard total cholesterol/LDL/HDL lipid panel.

Edited by timar, 23 June 2014 - 10:11 AM.

[Dolph]

While there is actually no good reason to "not like" statins, which are excellent, safe and effective drugs, red yeast rice would certainly be a much worse alternative. There is no way to tell how much total monacolines and which ones exactly are in there. Not even to mention the potential for nephrotoxic mycotoxins which could certainly cause disastrous damage in the long run.

 

I really don't get the fuss about statins, seems to be a very american issue. Don't listen to the quacks people...

[pamojja]

While there is actually no good reason to "not like" statins, which are excellent, safe and effective drugs, red yeast rice would certainly be a much worse alternative. There is no way to tell how much total monacolines and which ones exactly are in there. Not even to mention the potential for nephrotoxic mycotoxins which could certainly cause disastrous damage in the long run.

 

I really don't get the fuss about statins, seems to be a very american issue. Don't listen to the quacks people...

 

Please inform yourself, instead of constantly denigrating people who for their own risk/benefit evaluation have done so. Or at least post the evidence for your promotion of pharmaceuticals.

 

In the case of the person in this thread:

 

Statin Drugs Given for 5 Years for Heart Disease Prevention (Without Known Heart Disease) Benefits in Percentage

• 98% saw no benefit
• 0% were helped by being saved from death
• 1.6% were helped by preventing a heart attack
• 0.4% were helped by preventing a stroke

Harms in Percentage

• 2% were harmed by developing diabetes**
• 10% were harmed by muscle damage

[Dolph]

What you do can't even be called cherry-picking. It's turd -picking or something like that... At least it makes it very obvious you just aren't able or willing to gather and evaluate information properly. Nevertheless you feel perfectly fine to damage the health and possibly shorten the life of people you even don't know by your "suggestions"...

 

There is so much data on statins in primary prevention showing an unambigous and meaningful benefit it feels almost outright crazy to even be asked for it.

 

http://summaries.coc...ascular-disease

 

Because I just KNOW you will jump again on what you feel(!) is a high NNT I would like to stress that a NNT has always to be seen in the context of timeframe. Given a lifelong therapy with statins started early enough, the arithmetical, cumulative NNT gets very low and can be estimated easily in the single digit range.

Edited by Dolph, 23 June 2014 - 10:52 AM.

[pamojja]

What you do can't even be called cherry-picking. It's turd -picking or something like that... At least it makes it very obvious you just aren't able or willing to gather and evaluate information properly. Nevertheless you feel perfectly fine to damage the health and possibly shorten the life of people you even don't know by your "suggestions"...

 

 

I only related my experience, and suggest that each has to make a benefit/risk evaluation oneself, since it is only oneself who will have to take the consequences of whatever choice.

You on the contrary, openly make treatment recommendations!

 

Given a lifelong therapy with statins started early enough, the arithmetical, cumulative NNT gets very low and can be estimated easily in the single digit range.

 

And your estimate without evidence is less turd-picking?

[Dolph]

 

I only related my experience, and suggest that each has to make a benefit/risk evaluation oneself, since it is only oneself who will have to take the consequences of whatever choice.

You on the contrary, openly make treatment recommendations!

 

No, I never did that. I explained why your childish challenging of treatment recommendations made by officials, scientific boards and individual practitioners is based on sheer bullshit, FUD, your severe lack of ability to interpret data, your very obvious lack of understanding of the pathophysiology of atheroscleros and finally NOT on scientific evidence . That's a very meaningful difference.

 

And by the way it's sickening to read your BS on every thread again and again. Just shut the **** up and live on in la la land.

Edited by Dolph, 23 June 2014 - 11:08 AM.

[pamojja]

Your denial to discuss existing evidence with ad hominem attacks - considering speculations about alleged benefits indisputable, portraying serious side effects negligible - make you appear like a pharmaceutical shill writer. And you can consistently down vote me as much as you like, I wont shut up .
 

Arteriosclerosis measured by CAC score once started, precedes at 30% per year, which statins alone rarely stops on its own. With a 80% blockage at my abdominal aorta bifurcation I better understand the basics to having brought that to a full stop.

 

For that one has to have to know all pro and cons of each treatment option and choose wisely for one's own good.

 

At least I started to understand it that well that my debilitating intermittent claudication improved from mere 3-400 meter up to 2 hours walking distance, and all my lab markers have never been better. Despite that you still would have me on statins in a other recent thread?!

 

 

[shifter]

My auntie apparently has this high cholesterol condition according to her doctor too. She has a TOTAL (not one part of it) level, total = 3.2 (123.7 mg/dl). It's at this level because of Statins. Might have been a little over twice that at its worst.

He does not recommend coQ10 and refuses to check her vitamin D level because if she takes a tablet (no commercial ones here are more than 1000iu) it is enough.

Keeps upping her dose despite a lower than normal cholesterol level. It's almost as if her body keeps adapting to the statins.

She has 100% faith in doctors and trusts their advice as holier than bible.

Perhaps she is part of a private experiment, 'how low can it go'??

Cholesterol is vital in the body, for every cell. It's not the enemy. Her doctor is an ingrate and taking advantage of her trust.

Funny how the healthy cholesterol range keeps updating and the healthy range falling lower. Soon, they'll recommend blanketing the whole society and say it's better for health.

Statins may benefit a very small percentage of people, but they need to be less lazy in targeting exactly who these people are.

[Turnbuckle]

The side effect of statins is 'muscle pain'. But what is that indicitive of? 

 

 

 

The destruction of mitochondria.

[shifter]

Oh, my auntie has developed diabetes since starting the statins and has to monitor her glucose all the time and is on tablets for very bad muscle aches and pains. My mum has given up her statins as she also had muscle aches.

My doctor who told me the side effects said the side effects was muscle pain and 1 in 100. Not the 10 in 100 quoted earlier here. He never mentioned diabetes which quoted here is twice the 1 in 100 figure he gave for muscle pains.

I think I'll find another doctor....

[Darryl]

Red yeast rice IS a statin drug, containing significant amounts of lovastatin, and yes, even red yeast rice can cause rhabdomyolysis.

 

Personally, I think pushing C:12-16 saturated fats as low as possible with an very-low added fat, low added sugar/refined food plant based diet is a useful foundation to any longevity plan, and it has pushed my LDL below 70 mg/dL, but with LDL at 212, I'd take statins regardless of the muscle and cognitive side-effects.

 

Edited by Darryl, 24 June 2014 - 01:39 AM.

[scottknl]

Statin drugs make you weak.  Aging already does enough damage, so I see no need to add to it.  I remember reading an article on Science daily about how even asymptomatic people have detectable blood levels of muscle cell destruction when taking statin drugs.  Of course there's also other evidence that statin drugs increase lifespan in non-human models.  If I have to choose between being as weak as a kitten or a shorter life, I think I'd choose a shorter life.

[Turnbuckle]

Perhaps she is part of a private experiment, 'how low can it go'??
 

 

 

If this is part of a private experiment, then this doctor is a quack. The study below found that for women, higher cholesterol was better, and for men, a moderate cholesterol (but high according the medical profession) was better. See in particular Figure 1--

 

 

Is the use of cholesterol in mortality risk algorithms in clinical guidelines valid? Ten years prospective data from the Norwegian HUNT 2 study

 

Results

Among women, cholesterol had an inverse association with all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.99 per 1.0 mmol L-1 increase] as well as CVD mortality (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88-1.07). The association with IHD mortality (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92--1.24) was not linear but seemed to follow a "U-shaped" curve, with the highest mortality <5.0 and >7.0 mmol L-1. Among men, the association of cholesterol with mortality from CVD (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98–1.15) and in total (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.93-1.03) followed a "U-shaped" pattern.

 

The best range for men in mg/dl, according to the study, is 193 to 271 mg/dl.

 

Years ago a doctor prescribed a statin drug because my cholesterol was 260 and it made me feel like death warmed over, and yet according to the study I had a healthy cholesterol level to begin with. I never got over that drug until I began taking C60.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 24 June 2014 - 06:26 PM.

[JohnD60]

my 2 cents on Cholesterol: I reject the premise of the original poster's question. I think the lipid hypothesis is worthless for the large majority of the population, and I don't much care that my LDL is very high. My body fat is only about 9% and my Cartoid Intima Media Thickness is better than 90% of men my age.

Edited by JohnD60, 24 June 2014 - 08:47 PM.

[Darryl]

Turnbuckle, cholesterol levels fall in the elderly and those who are sick and near death. Basically any cholesterol / mortality study that doesn't include a very long followup and exclude the first few years is deeply flawed due to this reverse causality.

[pamojja]

Back to the most basic measurement of Arteriosclerosis:

 

http://www.cureality...ry-calcium.html

Edited by pamojja, 24 June 2014 - 09:16 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Statins are toxic to liver cells via ROS damage to mitochondria--

Mechanisms of the statins cytotoxicity in freshly isolated rat hepatocytes.

 

Abstract

 

Statins are potent drugs, used as lipid-lowering agents in cardiovascular diseases. Hepatotoxicity is one of the serious adverse effects of statins, and the exact mechanism of hepatotoxicity is not yet clear. In this study, the cytotoxic effects of the most commonly used statins, that is, atorvastatin, lovastatin, and simvastatin toward isolated rat hepatocytes, were evaluated. Markers, such as cell death, reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, lipid peroxidation, mitochondrial membrane potential, and the amount of reduced and oxidized glutathione in the statin-treated hepatocytes, were investigated. It was found that the statins caused cytotoxicity toward rat hepatocytes dose dependently. An elevation in ROS formation, accompanied by a significant amount of lipid peroxidation and mitochondrial depolarization, was observed. Cellular glutathione reservoirs were decreased, and a significant amount of oxidized glutathione was formed. This study suggests that the adverse effect of statins toward hepatocytes is mediated through oxidative stress and the hepatocytes mitochondria play an important role in the statin-induced toxicity.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23761184

 

 

 

The same group found NAC to be protective--

 

Conclusion: This study confirms that oxidative stress and consequently mitochondrial dysfunction is one of the mechanisms underlying the statins-induced liver injury and treating hepatocytes by NAC (200 μM) attenuates this cytotoxicity.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3992960/

 

 

 

 

The effect on muscle cells depend on the muscle. They destroy skeletal muscles while helping cardiac muscles (perhaps explaining why you might live longer even if you are miserable). This paper suggests that Quercetin and NAC might help--

 

Opposite effects of statins on mitochondria of cardiac and skeletal muscles: a 'mitohormesis' mechanism involving reactive oxygen species and PGC-1

 

Aims

 

Statins protect against cardiovascular-related mortality but induce skeletal muscle toxicity. To investigate mechanisms of statins, we tested the hypothesis that statins optimized cardiac mitochondrial function but impaired vulnerable skeletal muscle by inducing different level of reactive oxygen species (ROS).

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC3365271/

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Turnbuckle, 25 June 2014 - 01:07 PM.

[AlexCanada]

A real shame we have some very real Big Pharma shills on here attempting to sell people on the wonders of dangerous drugs like Statins.  A real shame! 

[Mike C]

Been on statins for 35 years no side effects nothing. Have familial hypercholesterolemia. Ldl is 210 w/o statins. Your wife has 224 ldl and by every parameter she should lower that. All the authorities, CDC, AHA, WHO ETC.recommend cholesterol lowering if ldl is above 190 no matter what your other numbers are and or risk factors. My father was muscular, thin and ate a decent diet, lots of fruit and salads. He died at 44 and his farther died at 45 and his brother at 45. I tried all the very very low fat diets, vegan diets and my ldl stayed stubbornly the same no matter what I ate. High fat low fat made absolutely no difference. higher healthy fat diets ended up as my best choice because they raised Hdl and lowered triglycerides, but still nada for ldl. I thank God for statins my brother, my two daughters take them also with absolutely no ill effects and I personally know quite a few people who have been on them for years with zero ill effect. I am 64 years old.

Edited by Mike C, 02 May 2017 - 12:08 PM.