My cholesterol is 5.3 do I have a risk

[Santoshsam50]

Hi am 40 and I had stent 3 years back I got my cholesterol checked it had 5.3 already I do regular exercise don't smoke and eat healthy and I am on staton

What could be reason

[cjdgeorge]

The total figure of cholesterol is (largely) meaningless. Some persons have that figure with no adverse effects; some have plaque deposits with lower levels. What IS much more significant as an indicator is the ratio of HDL:LDL which needs to be above 4.

You do not particularise where the stent is and why it was put in which would be helpful.

Personally, I would not worry about total cholesterol and would address the issue of insulin resistance quite simply by going "keto" and taking lots and lots of endurance LOW level exercise so in your case nothing above a pulse rate of 135 (180 minus your age and also an extra factor reduction of 5 as a non athlete)

[sandybrown]

Statin medication is offered a primary medication to control cholesterol and as secondary to help blood flow after a heart event. You doctor is the best person to offer you guidance.

I take it you are on some other medication after your stent.

[sos007 Ambassador]

is 5.3 mmol/l your total cholesterol or your LDL-C value?

If total cholesterol, then you are very close to the normal value for total cholesterol which is 5.18 mmol/l. If that's your LDL-C, then you're level is much too high and should be below 2.59 mmol/l.

Total cholesterol is of little value. Treatment targets are based on LDL-C.

That said, these treatment targets are antiquated and new research shows non-HDL-C is a better treatment marker. Subtract the HDL-C value from your total cholesterol value and you get non-HDL-C which should be <=2.6 mmol/l if you are considered a high-risk patient, which you are, due to previous stenting.

The best marker for Cardiovascular (CV) Risk is a cholesterol measure called Apo B. It measures the number of LDL particles which is a better barometer of plaque-forming cholesterol in your blood. Ideally you should have a measure that is <0.81 g/l.

ApoA-I measures the cardio-protective lipoproteins in your blood that act to remove the artery-damaging LDL particles from your body. This process is called Reverse Cholesterol Transport.

It is therefore the balance between the Apo B, and the ApoA-I that gives you a better idea of the health of your arteries. By dividing the Apo B measure by the Apo A-I measure you get a ratio which should be <0.80.

You should try and get some other tests as well to provide a more complete picture of your cardiac health.

hs-CRP - measures inflammation in the body.

MPO - measures inflammation specifically in the arteries and correlates to oxidized-LDL which are the damaging sub-fraction of the LDL-C.

PLAC-test, also known as LP-PLA2 which measures your vulnerability to plaque rupture in your arteries. Plaque rupture is what triggers heart attacks and strokes.

Fibrinogen - measures the level of blood clotting or stickiness of your blood platelets. Too much stickiness can lead to blood clots forming that can also cause a heart attack and stroke.

Homocysteine - measures this artery damaging amino acid which requires more B12 and folate to neutralize it.

For most people, a reduction in the consumption of sugar and simple carbohydrates, coupled with 30 minutes of exercise daily will reduce cholesterol levels to the desirable range.

The form of exercise you should engage in depends on your level of health. You can start with walking and eventually build up to high-intensity interval training (HIIT) when your conditioning can tolerate it. HIIT is better at metabolizing stored abdominal fat than endurance-oriented exercise. A 15 minutes HIIT workout can provide the same benefit as a 1 hour endurance workout.

[cjdgeorge in reply to sos007]

Re "HIIT is better at metabolizing stored abdominal fat than endurance-oriented exercise. A 15 minutes HIIT workout can provide the same benefit as a 1 hour endurance workout."

The rest of your comment has sufficiently authority and commonality with my literature research and experience for me to accept and agree. However, for the quote above, it would be helpful to have your source evidence as, in my experience, the use of HI exercise metabolised mainly muscle glycogen and stimulates a whole host of emergency responses hormonally which sensibly should not be used for longer than a period of at most four weeks in any serious athletic programme. The type of exercise that uses triglycerides without the aforementioned glycogen use has many benefits hormonally when used in conjunction with a very low insulin stimulating diet. So my view would be for a sedentary person with no history of exercise to start of walking briskly for at least an hour a day - better more and for the athlete as long as he or she needs or wants to! I started training for my next IM on keto and it works.

[sos007 Ambassador in reply to cjdgeorge]

"4. Conclusions and Clinical Implications

Research examining the effects of HIIE has produced preliminary evidence to suggest that HIIE can result in modest reductions in subcutaneous and abdominal body fat in young normal weight and slightly overweight males and females. Studies using overweight male and female type 2 diabetic individuals have shown greater reductions in subcutaneous and abdominal fat."

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...

Other studies:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/204...

unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%2...

I also clearly noted that HIIT should be done after building toward it and when a person's conditioning is ready to tolerate it, not immediately.

I had bypass surgery exactly 2 years ago. One year ago i changed my exercise from 90 minute walks to 30 minute HIIT workouts. My fat-loss accelerated. At the same time I have eliminated virtually all sugar and simple carbs in my diet. My triglycerides are 0.5 mmol/l.

I'm 55 this year and have a sedentary office job. However I am self employed and structure my day to get a HIIT workout in 3 days per week, while the other 3 days involve a 60 minute walk, and the 7th day is a game of hockey which is actually another form of HIIT.

I have come off of all medications except for 81 mg of baby aspirin.

[cjdgeorge in reply to sos007]

That is most helpful. I suspect that in most cases and in both our cases it is the diet that is key not the exercise. A quick (very quick) review of your three articles indicate (subject to a proper reading) that none of the subjects were on the sort of diet you and I are on but relate to "normal" individuals.

[sandybrown in reply to cjdgeorge]

I am afraid both diet and exercise are necessary for a healthy life style!!!

[sos007 Ambassador in reply to cjdgeorge]

Research studies generally identify a certain subset of individuals with common traits. The purpose of these studies was to determine which form of exercise was best at burning fat.

My motivation was to burn fat, not to train for any specific athletic endeavour.

Although given that I do play hockey, I have found the HIIT has improved my speed and conditioning very significantly.

I was 190 lbs before my surgery and am now at 154 lbs. The first year after surgery my exercise was primarily walking. It wasn't until I discovered HIIT that my weight really started to come off, that plus a diet modified to eliminate simple carbs and shift from animal protein to plant protein, but includes dairy and egg whites.

Best wishes

[sandybrown]

I leave the numbers to the medical experts!

For a healthy life, we need to have food and drinks intake control and regular exercise what ever it is to start with and at least a number of days a week.