Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Help me keep my wife off Lipitor page 2

  1. #11
    Ncgirl's Avatar
    Ncgirl is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    17
    Primal Fuel
    Google statin induced ALS. My BIL died of this induced by zocor. No one in my family will eVer go near a statin.

  2. #12
    JamesS's Avatar
    JamesS is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Posts
    457
    Quote Originally Posted by Scotto View Post
    Hi Folks,

    I've been enjoying the forums for quite a while, but this is my first post. I turned primal about 3 months ago. I was in decent shape, but I have seen a great transformation with this lifestyle change, and I couldn't be happier. Here is my issue: about a month and a half ago my wife decided to change her lifestyle to primal also. She is somewhat overweight, and has lost quite a bit of weight already, with more to go. She was feeling good about the change until yesterday. Her cholesterol levels have always been high, and she has a family history of high cholesterol and heart disease. Every year after her routine physical, her doctor tries to get her to go on a statin to reduce her cholesterol levels. I have been adamantly opposed to this, and have shared with her all I know about statins not helping women, the very tenuous link between cholesterol and disease, etc. She decided to wait it out until she got the results back of her latest test after eating primal for a while. Anyway last night her results came back as follows:

    6 months ago Yesterday
    Total Cholesterol 226 239
    LDL 162 174
    HDL 51 45
    Trigs 62 98

    I had primed her that her LDL might go up (and not to worry), but the numbers had our doctor calling again and telling her she needs to be on Lipitor. I am in an awkward position - I want what is best for her, which is to continue to be primal and not be on statins. But I am arguing against her doctor's advice, which is making her nervous. Any suggestions as to what these numbers mean and what I can tell her? I am a little surprised by the triglyceride levels and the ratio to HDL.

    Thanks!
    I am glad to hear that she wants to avoid the statins. Among other issues with statins is that they increase the risk of heart failure. Have some reading for you that will give you a lot of ideas:

    Effectiveness of altering serum cholesterol levels without drugs

    Natural Approaches to HDL, LDL and Total Cholesterol

    Alt/Trad Medical Review

    And regarding elevated triglycerides:

    High triglycerides

  3. #13
    BONZ's Avatar
    BONZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ME/Southwest Asia
    Posts
    145
    First of all, read Griff's cholesterol primer. Great info. From that very informative post, her numbers break down as follows:

    Total/HDL: 239/45 or 5.31 (ideal = 5 or below)

    Trig/HDL: 98/45 or 2.18 (ideal = 2 or below)
    Indicator of small particle pattern B (Bad) or large particle pattern A (Good) LDL.

    LDL/HDL: 174/45 or 3.87 (ideal = 4.3 or below)

    If you want to get WAY down in the weeds, Dr. Attia's Straight Dope on Cholesterol is one of the most detailed (and minutiae covered) things I've read, but if you can wade through it there's some great information in there. Per Dr. Peter Attia, nothing is more important than LDL-P counts. That's the total number of small particle LDL, not LDL-C which is an estimation of the amount of cholesterol contained in LDL particles. Per his research it's the ONLY reliable indicator (correlation or causation aside) of your risk of atherosclerosis, all other things being equal.

    I hope this gives you some ideas and a jumping off point for your own inquiry into what is, by all accounts, a grossly confusing and missunderstood section of how the human body functions.
    Last edited by BONZ; 08-17-2012 at 11:45 PM.
    Went Primal: 20 DEC 2011
    Starting: 6'1" 220 lbs
    Starting Energy: "bleh...."
    Current: 183 lbs @ 8.33% BF (Jackson/Pollock 4 caliper method)
    Current Energy: "WOOHOO!" See my journal HERE.

    "Paleo? Try it, but be wary of the cult mentality that comes with it. Paleovangelists are everywhere and a bit scary."

  4. #14
    magicmerl's Avatar
    magicmerl is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    3,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Scotto View Post
    6 months ago Yesterday
    Total Cholesterol 226 239
    LDL 162 174
    HDL 51 45
    Trigs 62 98

    I had primed her that her LDL might go up (and not to worry), but the numbers had our doctor calling again and telling her she needs to be on Lipitor. I am in an awkward position - I want what is best for her, which is to continue to be primal and not be on statins. But I am arguing against her doctor's advice, which is making her nervous. Any suggestions as to what these numbers mean and what I can tell her? I am a little surprised by the triglyceride levels and the ratio to HDL.

    Thanks!
    Those numbers are all moving in the wrong direction. I'm sorry, but it's true. However, this is just one test. I would hold fire on jettisoning primal, I *definitely* wouldn't take a statin (it sounds like you already know how useless and harmful they are). Give it a month or three and see if her numbers improve when she retests.

    The two things I think you want to do are push up HDL (since it's the denominator of the three ratios, increasing HDL makes all of your ratios better) and decreasing your trigs.

    Lowering your carb intake will make your trigs go down. Here's marks post on 'good' cholesterol foods.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

  5. #15
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by BONZ View Post
    Per Dr. Peter Attia, nothing is more important than LDL-P counts. That's the total number of small particle LDL, not LDL-C which is an estimation of the amount of cholesterol contained in LDL particles. Per his research it's the ONLY reliable indicator (correlation or causation aside) of your risk of atherosclerosis, all other things being equal.
    Peter Attia is saying LDL-P is the total number of LDL particles of all sizes and that LDL size is not a risk factor. He is very adamant on this point.
    Last edited by Artbuc; 08-18-2012 at 01:46 AM.

  6. #16
    BONZ's Avatar
    BONZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ME/Southwest Asia
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Artbuc View Post
    Peter Attia is saying LDL-P is the total number of LDL particles of all sizes and that LDL size is not a risk factor. He is very adamant on this point.
    Yes, and with a fixed amount of cholesterol contained in LDL, the higher the LDL-P number, the smaller each particle has the potential (like quantity more highly dispersed) to be which increases it's ability to deposit behind a single cell membrane..... causing damage and the foundation for plaque collection. Am I wrong on this? I read the blog linked earlier once, about 5 months ago, but I thought I had retained it fairly well.

    On the other hand, you're right. Had I just left "small particle" out of my original statement then message conveyed.
    Went Primal: 20 DEC 2011
    Starting: 6'1" 220 lbs
    Starting Energy: "bleh...."
    Current: 183 lbs @ 8.33% BF (Jackson/Pollock 4 caliper method)
    Current Energy: "WOOHOO!" See my journal HERE.

    "Paleo? Try it, but be wary of the cult mentality that comes with it. Paleovangelists are everywhere and a bit scary."

  7. #17
    BONZ's Avatar
    BONZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ME/Southwest Asia
    Posts
    145
    Ha, scratch that, I found it.....

    "The common denominator is that both sets of patients in (1) and (2) have high LDL-P. What Iím going to attempt to show you today is that once adjusted for particle number, particle size has no statistically significant relationship to cardiovascular risk."

    Good catch, thanks for the correction!
    Went Primal: 20 DEC 2011
    Starting: 6'1" 220 lbs
    Starting Energy: "bleh...."
    Current: 183 lbs @ 8.33% BF (Jackson/Pollock 4 caliper method)
    Current Energy: "WOOHOO!" See my journal HERE.

    "Paleo? Try it, but be wary of the cult mentality that comes with it. Paleovangelists are everywhere and a bit scary."

  8. #18
    BONZ's Avatar
    BONZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ME/Southwest Asia
    Posts
    145
    And scratch that back, I knew I wasn't crazy.... The example he used:

    "Hereís the example: Consider 2 patients, both with the same total content of cholesterol in their LDL particles, say, 130 mg/dL. Furthermore, assume each has the ďidealĒ ratio of core cholesterol ester-to-triglyceride (recall from Part I and III of this series, this ratio is 4:1). Iím going to explain in a subsequent post why this assumption is probably wrong as often as itís right, but for the purpose of simplicity I want to make a geometric point.

    1.LDL-C = 130 mg/dL, Pattern A (large particles) Ė person on the left in the figure below
    2.LDL-C = 130 mg/dL, Pattern B (small particles) Ė person on the right in the figure below

    Under the set of assumptions Iíve laid out, case #2 is the higher risk case. In other words, at the same concentration of cholesterol within LDL particles, assuming the same ratio of CE:TG, it is mathematically necessary the person on the right, case #2, has more particles, and therefore has greater risk"

    His point was, all other things equal, that smaller particle size would result in a higher particle count. That's what I had stuck on the brain.
    Went Primal: 20 DEC 2011
    Starting: 6'1" 220 lbs
    Starting Energy: "bleh...."
    Current: 183 lbs @ 8.33% BF (Jackson/Pollock 4 caliper method)
    Current Energy: "WOOHOO!" See my journal HERE.

    "Paleo? Try it, but be wary of the cult mentality that comes with it. Paleovangelists are everywhere and a bit scary."

  9. #19
    Artbuc's Avatar
    Artbuc is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    553
    Yes, but the key point is that it is total LDL-P, not particle size which drives risk, at least according to Attia. Others do not agree with him. In the example you used, it is just a mathematical reality that at the same LDL-C, if someone has small particles they will necessarliy need more LDL partcles to carry the given amount of cholesterol and thus have higher risk of CVD. This is why I think we should not be so quick to condemn statins. If Attia is right about LDL-P, and we don't have a way to reduce LDL-P (at least I have never seen anyone site a study or claim they know how to), the only way we can reduce risk is to reduce the amount of LDL-C. Attia also says (based on my memeory) that LDL-C has NOTHING to do with accumulation of plaque. To be honest, I do not know how to square these two statements. Attia says plaque accumulation is a purely gradient driven process. Simply put, the more particles you have bouncing around, the more will penetrate, cause foam cells and accumulate plaque. Just seems to me that if those LDL particles are carrying less cholesterol, I would have less plaque. Maybe someday Attia will address this.
    Last edited by Artbuc; 08-18-2012 at 05:07 AM.

  10. #20
    BONZ's Avatar
    BONZ is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    ME/Southwest Asia
    Posts
    145
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Well, trigs are carried in higher density in LDL particles. Insulin resistant people have higher trig counts, as well as people on high carbohyrate diets. I assume because unsulin signaling is preventing the use of fatty acid in the energy process leaving a higher concentration of trigs in the blood stream, but that's my non-scientific best guess. I don't have any clue as to why that actually is. The higher your trig count, the more dispersed your cholesterol (at a given amount at any time) is in LDL. Higher trig=higher LDL-P as best I can tell. Somebody feel free to smack me if I'm wrong. He does mention specifically that small particle LDL can be a very early indicator of insulin resistance and all the metabolic mallodies that follow it.
    Went Primal: 20 DEC 2011
    Starting: 6'1" 220 lbs
    Starting Energy: "bleh...."
    Current: 183 lbs @ 8.33% BF (Jackson/Pollock 4 caliper method)
    Current Energy: "WOOHOO!" See my journal HERE.

    "Paleo? Try it, but be wary of the cult mentality that comes with it. Paleovangelists are everywhere and a bit scary."

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •