General Discussion on any topic relating to CPAP and/or Sleep Apnea.
-
Janknitz
- Posts: 8413
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:05 pm
- Location: Northern California
Post
by Janknitz » Sun Sep 07, 2014 12:10 pm
(Quite frankly, I am now beginning to worry that my LDL might be too low.)
HA!!! The mcDougall vegans would kill for low LDLs like that but they are terrified of fat! I'd much rather slather my veggies in butter than eat it like rabbit food.
Women live longer and have fewer incidences of cancer, heart disease, and infectious disease the HIGHER LDL is after menopause.
On my LCHF diet, my trigs are 55 and HDL is 100. A great ratio!
-
Jay Aitchsee
- Posts: 2936
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 12:47 pm
- Location: Southwest Florida
Post
by Jay Aitchsee » Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:45 pm
Roger, have a look at this article from Harvard Health. I think you'll find it interesting, too. Funny thing, my low total cholesterol level at 129 makes the calculator unusable to me. But, if I enter 130 for total cholesterol, 48 for HDL, 120 for BP, no to diabetes, no to hypertension, no to smoker, and age > 65, it recommends a medium to high intensity statin. Evidentially, age alone is enough of a risk factor to justify a statin?
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/chol ... 1311196886
Howard LeWine, M.D., Chief Medical Editor
Internet Publishing, Harvard Health Publications
Cholesterol guidelines update: controversy over heart risk calculator
Last week the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology released new guidelines that upended previous recommendations for who should take a cholesterol-lowering statin. A few days later, two Harvard physicians challenged the accuracy of the calculator included in the guidelines, saying it would cause many people to unnecessarily take a statin
Last edited by
Jay Aitchsee on Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
Jay Aitchsee
- Posts: 2936
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 12:47 pm
- Location: Southwest Florida
Post
by Jay Aitchsee » Sun Sep 07, 2014 1:52 pm
Janknitz wrote:HA!!! The mcDougall vegans would kill for low LDLs like that but they are terrified of fat! I'd much rather slather my veggies in butter than eat it like rabbit food. Women live longer and have fewer incidences of cancer, heart disease, and infectious disease the HIGHER LDL is after menopause. On my LCHF diet, my trigs are 55 and HDL is 100. A great ratio!
I know...right?
Great numbers, Jan. The only thing I've found that will raise my HDL is fat! My prescribed low fat high carb diet of years ago drove my HDL into the low 30's. My current diet has brought it back up to 48. Could be higher, but a great improvement.
-
RogerSC
- Posts: 1892
- Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 1:11 pm
Post
by RogerSC » Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:36 pm
Jay Aitchsee wrote:
Roger, have a look at this article from Harvard Health. I think you'll find it interesting, too. Funny thing, my low total cholesterol level at 129 makes the calculator unusable to me. But, if I enter 130 for total cholesterol, 48 for HDL, 120 for BP, no to diabetes, no to hypertension, no to smoker, and age > 65, it recommends a medium to high intensity statin. Evidentially, age alone is enough of a risk factor to justify a statin?
Yes, I think that age alone is a large part of the risk factors being considered. I noticed that if I took 10 years off my age, my risk percentage was cut more than in half. It's all a numbers game, risk tables and all. The older you are the more likely you are to die. What a revelation!
-
Jay Aitchsee
- Posts: 2936
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 12:47 pm
- Location: Southwest Florida
Post
by Jay Aitchsee » Sun Sep 07, 2014 3:48 pm
RogerSC wrote:The older you are the more likely you are to die. What a revelation!
I hear ya!
-
Janknitz
- Posts: 8413
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:05 pm
- Location: Northern California
Post
by Janknitz » Fri Oct 31, 2014 6:52 pm
If you are a woman on statins, here's a couple more reasons to think twice:
Conclusions
We concluded that statin use was associated with thyroid cancer in female patients.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 0/abstract
Conclusion: In this contemporary population-based case–control study, long-term use of statins was associated with increased risks of both IDC and ILC.
Impact: Additional studies with similarly high frequencies of statin use for various durations are needed to confirm this novel finding. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(9); 1529–37. ©2013 AACR.
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/22/9/1529.long
-
Jay Aitchsee
- Posts: 2936
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 12:47 pm
- Location: Southwest Florida
Post
by Jay Aitchsee » Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:13 am
Study: Doubling Saturated Fat in the Diet Does Not Increase Saturated Fat in Blood
"New research links diabetes, heart disease risk to diet high in carbs, not fat", writes Emily Caldwell of Ohio State
http://news.osu.edu/news/2014/11/21/stu ... -in-blood/
Emily Caldwell wrote:Doubling or even nearly tripling saturated fat in the diet does not drive up total levels of saturated fat in the blood, according to a controlled diet study.
However, increasing levels of carbohydrates in the diet during the study promoted a steady increase in the blood of a fatty acid linked to an elevated risk for diabetes and heart disease...
-
Sir NoddinOff
- Posts: 4190
- Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 5:30 pm
- Location: California
Post
by Sir NoddinOff » Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:55 pm
A long and interesting thread. Just as an addendum, I recently went off statins for six months with my cardiologist's approval and noticed not one bit of difference in my AHI, sleep quality or general health, although my bad cholesterol did go up enough to concern my cardiologist. He talked me into taking 80mg daily of pravastatin since it affects the muscle system (muscular myopathy) less than simivastin, my former statin drug. It's a common problem with many statins. I'll update this in a few months if anything needs to be reported.
I like my ResMed AirFit F10 FFM - reasonably low leaks for my ASV therapy. I'm currently using a PR S1 AutoSV 960P Advanced. I also keep a ResMed S9 Adapt as backup. I use a heated Hibernite hose. Still rockin' with Win 7 by using GWX to stop Win 10.
-
DaveInGA
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:13 pm
- Location: Jefferson, GA
Post
by DaveInGA » Tue Nov 25, 2014 7:21 pm
I was taking prevastatin at 40 MG to lower my bad cholesterol level and help me get started losing weight. I was recently diagnosed with Rheumatoid Arthritis and my Gastro Doc advised to stop taking the statin because my liver blood results were showing liver distress where none had existed before the statin prescription.
At this point, I'll never again take a statin drug, as I feel strongly the potential damage it can do to my organs is far greater than any potential benefit it offers.
There's one thing I learned quickly in the hospital related to keeping patients alive on a ventilator. If a person had bad lungs and a bad liver, there was nothing much I could do for them. If they had bad lungs, but a good liver, they could process the needed ventilator related drugs as well as any and all medications they were given. These patients, we could help.
I'd rather be fat with a good liver than take statins and have a bad liver.
As a side note, my liver improved enough very quickly after starting statins I can now take the drugs to treat my rheumatoid arthritis.
-
Janknitz
- Posts: 8413
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:05 pm
- Location: Northern California
Post
by Janknitz » Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:07 am
Dave, not sure what you did in the hospital? Doctor or allied health? But are you willing to give something a try that could relieve those RA symptoms without the heavy armament of drugs now available? It's not recognized by allopathic medicine, but many people are having amazing relief of RA symptoms by two things: eliminating grains from their diets and healing gut dysbiosis with probiotics.
Sounds woo woo, but it's cheap and easy to give it a try and if it doesn't work the whole panolpy of allopathic medicine is still there waiting for you. Give it a good month to six weeks of total grain elimination, probiotics (supplements and or fermented foods) and eliminate the sugars while you're at it. Essentially a Paleo diet or a Paleo autoimmune protocol (google it) if you're willing to give it a go.
Hippocrates said "let food be thy medicine". It's worth a try and your poor, abused liver may thank you. At the very least it will be in better condition for the RA meds you throw at it.
-
49er
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:18 am
Post
by 49er » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:02 am
Jay Aitchsee wrote:According to this article, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recommend taking statins if you are fortunate enough to reach the age of 66 even without the presence of other risk factors.
http://news.yahoo.com/elderly-cholester ... 22771.html
Regarding this exert:
Not only do the new guidelines recommend statins -- such as Lipitor -- for all people with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, or high levels of bad cholesterol, but also for healthy adults whose risk of heart attack or stroke is more than 7.5 percent over the next 10 years.
Older individuals will likely cross the 7.5 percent threshold based on age alone, even if they have normal cholesterol levels and no other cardiovascular risk factors," Miedema said.
Unless I am missing something, a 7.5 percent threshold based on age alone doesn't seem to justify treating someone prophylactically with meds. Additionally, what I would like to know is how does that statistic translate to numbers needed to treat such as hypothetically treating 50 66 year old people before you hit the one who has been allegedly saved from taking statins.
49er
-
Janknitz
- Posts: 8413
- Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:05 pm
- Location: Northern California
Post
by Janknitz » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:24 am
Nearly ALL statin use is prophylactic. They are treating risk factors, not disease, the primary risk factor targeted is "elevated" LDL-C. And evidence of the connection between LDL-C and cardiovascular risk is weakening. So the risk factor being treated isn't even a valid indicator of risk. Age is not a disease.
-
49er
- Posts: 5624
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 8:18 am
Post
by 49er » Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:32 am
Janknitz wrote:Nearly ALL statin use is prophylactic. They are treating risk factors, not disease, the primary risk factor targeted is "elevated" LDL-C. And evidence of the connection between LDL-C and cardiovascular risk is weakening. So the risk factor being treated isn't even a valid indicator of risk. Age is not a disease.
Oh, I don't disagree with you at all. I was just trying to point out that even using the conventional medical logic to prescribe meds for alleged cardiovascular risk factors didn't make any sense based on the statistics in this article.
49er
-
Jay Aitchsee
- Posts: 2936
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2011 12:47 pm
- Location: Southwest Florida
Post
by Jay Aitchsee » Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:28 am
49er wrote:Unless I am missing something, a 7.5 percent threshold based on age alone doesn't seem to justify treating someone prophylactically with meds. Additionally, what I would like to know is how does that statistic translate to numbers needed to treat such as hypothetically treating 50 66 year old people before you hit the one who has been allegedly saved from taking statins.
I think that is why there are many more people upset with these "new" guidelines which do not target LDL levels specifically than there were with the old. Basically, as you've noted, these new guidelines recommend statins for everyone of advanced age. I don't know of a study that has measured the reduction in all cause morbidity in patients who have begun statin treatment based on age as the only risk factor. Perhaps someone else does.