Cholesterol levels

[Chrissydoll]

Good morning everyone just a question about cholesterol levels I had my bloods done last wk at doctors now wen I went into hosp wen I had my ha in April it was 6- something it is now 4-6 is that good ? I ve been on 80mg statins since April ?

[Maisie2014]

Hi Chrissydol. My reading was 4 when I had my heart attack in February and I was told it should have been 2. I, like you, have been taking 80mg statins ever since. I had my review blood test yesterday so I’m awaiting the results. I disagree with Londinium though as diet did not keep my cholesterol low enough according to my cardiologist.

[Chrissydoll in reply to Maisie2014]

Hi thanks for that ye although it has come down don’t think it’s enough I don’t eat fatty foods ie fried stuff I eat lots of veg and loads fruit I drink water and hardly any alcohol to speak of I go out walking every day to build myself Bk up so I really don’t know wot else ure meant to do 😆

[Maisie2014]

You sound just like me Londinium. I refused to have my cholesterol checked and told my GP I had no intention of taking statins. I said there was no proof it made any difference. I then saw my arteries on the big screen when I was having angioplasty and stent fitted after my heart attack. I also had it explained to me that statins don’t just clear cholesterol but reduce inflammation and protect the liver. I’ve decided to take the tablets as I don’t want to be a dead clever dick. We are all different and medicines behave differently for different people. It’s just finding the balance and doing what works for you.

[Maisie2014]

I’ve just had a phone call from my GP. Apparently my statins have reduced my cholesterol but raised my liver function! She asked how much I drink. When I told her I didn’t drink she told me to half the statins and have another blood test in a couple of weeks. I think I preferred being ignorant and a clever dick. I think in my case it’s family history and fate. Not sure if I’d be better without them after all Londinium 😂.

[Hidden]

Nobody seems to know the role of triglycerides in older years, either.

I have seen articles that longevity beyond certain age group depends on how high your Triglycerides is. Does this sound medically logical? Apparently, it's a medical paradox.

Or, you are bound to have high triglycerides in older years (you are not going to be "busy" moving around much (?) but it no longer affects your health, and it may paradoxically help live longer beyond "that" age bracket? It supports cardiac/vascular function even?

There must be a difference between male&female, too.

It is well-known that "curvy" female elders with large amount of adipose tissues/"padding" live much longer. Okinawan elders are indeed all "chubby"/round-looking. If that applies to male elders, cannot say. But these could have no scientific basis except there are some studies on these subjects that there are.

[Londinium]

Yes, going by my previous laundry list of symptoms, and previously high intake of sugars, grains and carbs, I think I had... and, possibly, still do have, but to a lesser degree... Insulin Resistance, Metabolic Syndrome, HyperInsulinemia. I've been thinking of running some private lab tests to see what's what.

[stevejb1810]

In answer to your question, 4-6 is better than 6+, but it’s a small improvement. Your target should be somewhere south of 3 (there is some discussion about what is a good number, but if it’s 3 or less you are in a good place by most measures). But it’s not just the total, it’s also the ratio of ldl:hdl and as has been mentioned by others you should also take account of your triglycerides as well.

[stevejb1810]

I have no idea. It just seems to be current majority medical thinking. It doesn’t necessarily mean it’s right (or indeed, wrong) but it is what the majority of cardiologists (and most medics) will tell you.

[stevejb1810]

Yes I did but I said ‘current majority medical thinking’ because that is what it is. The majority will set low targets, but as with any majority, there will be those who think differently (brexit anyone!)

[stevejb1810]

I agree, why do you think I added the Brexit comment - the most devisive majority/minority 'discussion' of the moment? Are the majority right or are the minority right, are neither of them right. Time will tell.

One reason that dementia numbers are increasing is simply because people are living longer. Today there are more people over 80 than there has ever been. Unfortunately, they are not all enjoying rude health and it is in this more elderly population where the majority of dementia cases occur. That is not to say there are not younger dementia sufferers (early onset being typically defined as being somewhere around 60). Beyond the fact that we have an ageing population, I believe the jury is out on the actual causes of dementia and there are many theories out there, but nothing concrete yet.

We are digressing from cardiac conditions here somewhat, but the attached article from the US regarding dementia and Alzheimers is quite interesting and goes someway to explaining the stats (in the US). alzheimers.net/dementia-pre...

[stevejb1810]

Correlation is not necessarily causation

[stevejb1810]

It cuts both ways!

[fergusthegreat]

There's a hell of a lot of people who like yourself have very high cholesterol but they are either dead already or living with heart disease.

Maybe your lucky, an exception or your LDL is the larger type that doesn't penetrate artery walls.

Whatever the reason you shouldn't be on a heart disease forum telling people that it is OK to have very high cholesterol.

You are lucky, not a cardiologist.

[fergusthegreat]

Dementia has increased because of an aging population. My mother has it. She has never taken stations but she is 90 years old.