Cholesterol

[Williamsmith]

Don’t get me wrong, I think modern medicine in it’s most basic form and most researched treatments are wonderful. It’s saved my mother’s life several times over. But I see most of this work done by specialists. The general practitioner seems to have gone through a metamorphosis over my life time. And I think that change has been largely brought on by the drug industry. So when I hear accounts of older people having repeated testing to screen for this deficiency or that condition with an eye toward establishing a regular prescription to bring the number to an “acceptable” level, I get cautious. That caution is born out of the over prescription of practically every drug available. Now if I could look around and see that all this ingestion of chemicals has made our population healthier than other developed countries....I’d think, wow the marvel of the pill bottle. But I don’t see it. In fact, what I see is that the same business models that sell us processed foods to make us sick also sell us medicine to make us well again. Does that seem irrational?

[Rogar]

I suppose most people these days follow up their doctors recommendations with some sort of internet research. My go to site for what I consider mainstream medicine is the Mayo Clinic site. They have a fairly practical evaluation of statin risks and benefits. They claim that not everyone has the side effects and those that do can try alternates. It's sometimes a choice people have to make and I wouldn't totally discount what mainstream medicine has to say just because the pharmaceutical companies are pushing their products. I'd make every reasonable effort to avoid statins, though.

[SteveinMN]

In fact, what I see is that the same business models that sell us processed foods to make us sick also sell us medicine to make us well again. Does that seem irrational?

What's irrational? The business model? Or your perception of its existence? If it's the latter, I'd say no, it isn't irrational.

In general I am not a conspiracy theorist. But I see (time and again) evidence that the American model of medicine is not serving anyone except insurance companies and the makers of pharmaceuticals and related items. For example, the American Diabetes Association's guidelines for "blood sugar control" is a reading of 180 mg/dL two hours after eating -- even though pretty much any endocrinologist not associated with the ADA would say that a reading above 140 mg/dL by then would cause damage to the body. Yes, the entire home blood-glucose measuring process introduces some error. But you'd think then the ADA would be aiming for control levels even below 140 mg/dL to address that measurement error. After all, that's the same "concern" for a safety margin that had my PCP recommending that I take a statin for cholesterol numbers that (it turns out) were only borderline (under) for health issues (it's "protocol").

Both recommendations turn into long-term and (frequently) expensive courses of treatment and are ridden with side effects which require further spending. The cynic in me says it keeps the economy going. And that the ever-increasing profit motive is a huge obstacle to ever reforming the American health care system into one where outcomes align with what we spend for them.

[Williamsmith]

What's irrational? The business model? Or your perception of its existence? If it's the latter, I'd say no, it isn't irrational.

In general I am not a conspiracy theorist. But I see (time and again) evidence that the American model of medicine is not serving anyone except insurance companies and the makers of pharmaceuticals and related items. For example, the American Diabetes Association's guidelines for "blood sugar control" is a reading of 180 mg/dL two hours after eating -- even though pretty much any endocrinologist not associated with the ADA would say that a reading above 140 mg/dL by then would cause damage to the body. Yes, the entire home blood-glucose measuring process introduces some error. But you'd think then the ADA would be aiming for control levels even below 140 mg/dL to address that measurement error. After all, that's the same "concern" for a safety margin that had my PCP recommending that I take a statin for cholesterol numbers that (it turns out) were only borderline (under) for health issues (it's "protocol").

Both recommendations turn into long-term and (frequently) expensive courses of treatment and are ridden with side effects which require further spending. The cynic in me says it keeps the economy going. And that the ever-increasing profit motive is a huge obstacle to ever reforming the American health care system into one where outcomes align with what we spend for them.

It makes me think of the economy as some meat grinder and I see these cut out representations of people being stuffed into the feed bin of the grinder. You know in a Monty Python cartoonish kinda way.

[Suzanne]

This may be of interest: https://www.marksdailyapple.com/why-...-going-primal/

[Suzanne]

My own numbers:
Total cholesterol: 217mg/dL
Triglycerides: 51mg/dL
HDL: 71 mg/dL
LDL: 136 mg/dL

All my ratios are excellent, whether TC:HDL, LDL:HDL, or Triglycerides:HDL.

The LDL:HDL ratio is apparently considered the best predictor of heart disease. The higher the ratio, the higher the risk. A ratio of 2.5 LDL:1HDL is regarded as excellent. As my ratio is 136/71 = 1.9:1, I'm not worried by my LDL reading being over the ideal of 100. I don't particularly believe in this ideal anyway!

I have low blood pressure, good fasting glucose, and excellent bone density. My waist:height and waist:hip ratios are good. I think the whole picture is more important than any single part.

Edited to add: I do low-carb, high-fat, about 80% of the time.

[Yppej]

My ratio is 2.03.

Trump's is 1.49 but he is on statins.

[Ultralight]

Is cholesterol good or bad at the moment?

[pinkytoe]

I had a free health screening at work right before I retired two years ago:
Total Chol: 221
LDL: 124
HDL: 72
Triglycerides: 123 mg
Blood pressure was 122/65 which they marked as pre-hypertensive.
I don't worry too much about numbers. My goal is to not take pharmaceuticals of any kind. (Ironic as my mother was a pharmacist; I think she hastened her own death by taking Premarin for years back in the day. It was touted as a miracle too much like statins are now).

[sweetana3]

I think I mentioned this before but my doctor tried to use her fancy computer program to "show" me I was hastening my death by not using statins. I have always had high cholesterol and NOW borderline high blood pressure but 20 points lower than when I was working. Well, her fancy program showed I have a normal less than 5% chance of death in the next 10 years and since I am 64, not unexpected. Popped her bubble.

I also pointed out that my heart scan ($49 at local hospital) showed ZERO plaque built up. I am with pinkytoe and am very resistant to any pharma (except for my amazing asthma medication which I need for breathing).