Reply
Tue 13 Jul, 2004 08:00 am
Well, it's now been determined that millions who thought their cholesterol intake was at a safe level are actually 'at risk' and should be on medication. Now, I'm a cynic by nature so, to buffer the negative, I try to weigh things out before forming an opinion but this sounds like another attempt to jack the public and put millions and millions into the pockets of doctors and the drug manufacturers.
Whaddaya think?
Millions at risk
I'm with you on this one eoe; I think the drug manufactures are the big culprits here.
My doctor told me this was coming a few months ago. (High cholesterol runs in my family, and I've been on statins for 8-9 years.) In fact, I argued with him about this "scam."
He told me he had been sceptical, too, so he went to a national medical conference on this. He says there is new research indicating that the bloodstream has somewhat of a fixed capacity to handle cholesterol. Anything over 100-105 precipitates out, clogging the arteries. The higher the level, the faster the arteries clog up. So if a patient is, say, 70 years old, and their level is 110, chances are good that not enough fat will precipitate out in their lifetime to cause a blockage. However, if the patient with the 110 level is only 35 or 40, time will catch up with them.
Does this make more sense? It did to me.
Of course, choesterol medicines have side effects. You take some drugs to offset the side effects. Then the combination of those drugs causes side effects so you take more drugs - then more drugs to offset the NEW side effects etc.
Some people do have side effects to statin drugs, but most people don't. I've never had any problems with them, and my overall cholesterol level is now at 170 (as opposed to 260 before I started taking them.) So I'll continue. There's a lot of heart disease in my family.
Medical research needs to be taken with a grain of salt, especially when published in Journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the AMA.
Very often, the research in these journals is funded by the drug companies, a fact which should make one suspicious of the data and the intent of the authors.
One aspect of lowered cholesterol levels, at times forgotten is the propensity of such low levels to cause depression in patients. What good do low cholesterol levels do a person, if now that person has become suicidal because of depression?
The statins are effective meds and likewise can be dangerous, because of all their side effects. The fewer meds you take, the better you'll be in the long term.
One way to curb cholesterol levels is to excercise and watch your diet. If very high cholesterol levels run in your family ( genetic basis ), then try a medication, that does the least amount of damage to your body and your mind.
Interesting data published a few months ago, suggested that high HDL would or could be used to lower LDL and of course, HDL is good for your health. HDL now is marketed as a medication to lower cholesterol levels.
Don't take medical research with a grain of salt Miller! That will raise your blood pressure!
Eva wrote:Some people do have side effects to statin drugs, but most people don't. I've never had any problems with them, and my overall cholesterol level is now at 170 (as opposed to 260 before I started taking them.) So I'll continue. There's a lot of heart disease in my family.
And, did you change your diet? I went on a low fat diet to low my cholesterol levels. One result, so far, is that I have lost a significant amount of weight. I can't wait to see what my new cholesterol levels are, in the Fall.
eoe - "Scam!" was my first (second, third....) thought as well.
Miller -- I did try a strict low-fat diet, but my cholesterol level only went down to 235. Plus, I couldn't tolerate that diet for long. My sister is an RN, and said that in nutrition classes 2 years ago, they learned that only 15% (approx.) of your cholesterol level is determined by diet. The rest is manufactured by your own body. So, for most people with elevated cholesterol levels, diet changes alone (or combined with exercise) are not going to get the job done.
BTW, I've been on the South Beach Diet for about 10 weeks now, and it seems much more tolerable. Will find out in another 3 weeks if it has had any impact on cholesterol as well as blood sugar levels. (See A2K Virtual Weight Loss Club thread...under Sports & Fitness.)
Do you all remember, when all the MDs were pushing their female patients to take HRT during and after the menopause?
Then...all of a sudden...the big discovery, after many years, that HRT increases the risk of women to cancer.
What will the long term effects be on patients, who take all of these cholesterol-lowering drugs for many years?
If avoid rich food, strong liquor, fine tobacco, and loose ways, you won't live any longer, but it will seem like it.
Eva wrote:Miller -- I did try a strict low-fat diet, but my cholesterol level only went down to 235. Plus, I couldn't tolerate that diet for long. My sister is an RN, and said that in nutrition classes 2 years ago, they learned that only 15% (approx.) of your cholesterol level is determined by diet. The rest is manufactured by your own body. So, for most people with elevated cholesterol levels, diet changes alone (or combined with exercise) are not going to get the job done.
BTW, I've been on the South Beach Diet for about 10 weeks now, and it seems much more tolerable. Will find out in another 3 weeks if it has had any impact on cholesterol as well as blood sugar levels. (See A2K Virtual Weight Loss Club thread...under Sports & Fitness.)
After I lost about 30 pounds on the low fat diet, the weight leveled off and I 've had to now cut back on carbohydrates.
I agree the low fat diet become very boring. I managed to totally lose my desire for any food.
As important to cholesterol levels are the triglyceride levels. Why don't we hear more about them?
Eva, I forgot to say, that your total cholesterol might be 235, but what was your HDL? If it was close to 90, 235 doesn't really mean too much.
I forgot what the LDL & HDL levels were, but I do remember the triglyceride levels were WAY too high. I was definitely a carb lover. I expect the blood tests to be much different this next time around.
Eva wrote:I forgot what the LDL & HDL levels were, but I do remember the triglyceride levels were WAY too high. I was definitely a carb lover. I expect the blood tests to be much different this next time around.
the triglyceride levels are important.
I quit going to doctors years ago after observing that just about everybody who goes to doctors are sick!
When we checked my father-in-law into a nursing home, I helped gather up all his prescriptions to show his new doctor. He was taking 27 prescriptions!!!! You can't tell me that several of those were not conflicting with several others with toxic effect. Why was he getting most of them? Because the doctors constantly receive samples with reams of studies re this new drug or that new drug. It's just way too easy for doctors to write a prescription because it 'might' help and if you have several different specialists doing that, it can get out of hand very quickly.
But then I'm a strong advocate for litigation reform so that doctors don't HAVE to over prescribe, order too many tests, etc. etc. etc. to keep from being sued for malpractice.
The one thing of which you can be assured upon visiting a doctor is that you'll get some money removed.
Great way to hype an "epidemic". 
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace