linda115
05-26-2005, 12:52 PM
3-16-2005:
Total cholesterol: 241
Triglyceride: 274
HDL: 48
LDL: 138
5-21-2005:
total cholesterol: 139
Triglyceride: 97
HDL: 58
LDL: 62
I tried dieting and exercising for over a year and my test results got worse and worse. I also had partial thyroid surgery in February. Since my father died of cerebral hemorrhaging at 51, my doctor concluded that family history may play a factor in my cholesterol health. So she prescribed Vytorin and not Lipitor because Vytorin will also target the high triglyceride.
I have no side effects so far. I will continue for another three months until another check up.
Hope this information will help those who are thinking of taking Vytorin. It's worth a try!
Blessings,
Linda
Total cholesterol: 241
Triglyceride: 274
HDL: 48
LDL: 138
5-21-2005:
total cholesterol: 139
Triglyceride: 97
HDL: 58
LDL: 62
I tried dieting and exercising for over a year and my test results got worse and worse. I also had partial thyroid surgery in February. Since my father died of cerebral hemorrhaging at 51, my doctor concluded that family history may play a factor in my cholesterol health. So she prescribed Vytorin and not Lipitor because Vytorin will also target the high triglyceride.
I have no side effects so far. I will continue for another three months until another check up.
Hope this information will help those who are thinking of taking Vytorin. It's worth a try!
Blessings,
Linda
Sponsor
Lenin
05-26-2005, 03:41 PM
Spectacular results Linda...on all counts; triglycerides down 60%, LDL cut more than half and HDL up 20%.
You can't get better numbers without a trip to LOURDES!
You can't get better numbers without a trip to LOURDES!
linda115
05-26-2005, 03:51 PM
Right on, Lenin. I am so excited that I am speechless. Even the nurse who called me was exclaiming with joy for me. Now I can reward myself a Surf n' Turf dinner with no guilt. Praise God.
JJ
05-26-2005, 04:29 PM
Linda, that is fantastic, U deserve to treat yourself. Hopefully U will be one of the lucky ones and have NO side effects........ :)
A friend of mine was just put on Vytorin, as although she has been on Lipitor for years, they can't get her numbers low. Hopefully she will have luck like U did with the new stuff. Enjoy your day.... :wave:
A friend of mine was just put on Vytorin, as although she has been on Lipitor for years, they can't get her numbers low. Hopefully she will have luck like U did with the new stuff. Enjoy your day.... :wave:
Stumper
05-26-2005, 09:38 PM
Linda,
My deepest congratulations :) :)
You ,like myself, have had very good luck with Vytorin. I also know a friend of mine whose total cholesterol was in the 300's and is now all in normal ranges after Vytorin.
Total cholesterol--115
HDL--45
LDL--51
Tryglyerides--96
Very close to yours.
My deepest congratulations :) :)
You ,like myself, have had very good luck with Vytorin. I also know a friend of mine whose total cholesterol was in the 300's and is now all in normal ranges after Vytorin.
Total cholesterol--115
HDL--45
LDL--51
Tryglyerides--96
Very close to yours.
ARIZONA73
05-26-2005, 11:12 PM
Hmm, those numbers do seem rather LOW. Maybe perhaps a bit too low.
linda115
05-26-2005, 11:14 PM
Stumper,
Very glad to hear of your good report. I am trying to convince my husband to try Vytorin. (total cholesterol: 292, trig 134, HDL 53, LDL 212)
Help me out. If anyone has success in taking Vytorin, plase post your good reports here to encourage my hubby to give it a try. I told him that he can always stop as soon as any side effects show up. Diligent monitoring will go a long way.
Blessings,
Linda
Very glad to hear of your good report. I am trying to convince my husband to try Vytorin. (total cholesterol: 292, trig 134, HDL 53, LDL 212)
Help me out. If anyone has success in taking Vytorin, plase post your good reports here to encourage my hubby to give it a try. I told him that he can always stop as soon as any side effects show up. Diligent monitoring will go a long way.
Blessings,
Linda
linda115
05-26-2005, 11:21 PM
Arizona73,
I have left a message for my doctor requesting a reduced dosage. I am taking 10 mg Zeita/40 mg Zocor right now. I feel that the lowest dosage of 10/10 would be sufficient. Anyway, if the numbers get too low, I will eat a few more surf n' turf dinner. :)
I have left a message for my doctor requesting a reduced dosage. I am taking 10 mg Zeita/40 mg Zocor right now. I feel that the lowest dosage of 10/10 would be sufficient. Anyway, if the numbers get too low, I will eat a few more surf n' turf dinner. :)
HubbleRules
05-27-2005, 03:23 AM
Hmm, those numbers do seem rather LOW. Maybe perhaps a bit too low.
Arizona,
I agree - cholesterol levels can be too low. Too low or too high are both problematic, but doctors keep pushing people to constantly lower and lower levels, as if they've declared war on cholesterol. Cholesterol is a vital substance to the body, most of the brain is composed of cholesterol... You don't want too much - that is clear, but I think that going too low is a problem also. I've seen info that indicates life-span is lowered, and there are mental impairment problems with low cholesterol levels.
I worry about those who get their TC down near 100 - I wonder what long-term damage they may be doing to their bodies without realizing it... If you've had a heart attack, or if you've had by-pass or stents and have had proven blockage, clearly you are at extreme high risk of death from CHD, and the benefits exceed the risks. For everyone else, I'm not at all sure very low cholesterol is a good thing...
I realize many will think I'm raining on their parade - not my intention... Just trying to warn people to think about what they may be doing to their bodies.
HubbleRules
:cool:
Arizona,
I agree - cholesterol levels can be too low. Too low or too high are both problematic, but doctors keep pushing people to constantly lower and lower levels, as if they've declared war on cholesterol. Cholesterol is a vital substance to the body, most of the brain is composed of cholesterol... You don't want too much - that is clear, but I think that going too low is a problem also. I've seen info that indicates life-span is lowered, and there are mental impairment problems with low cholesterol levels.
I worry about those who get their TC down near 100 - I wonder what long-term damage they may be doing to their bodies without realizing it... If you've had a heart attack, or if you've had by-pass or stents and have had proven blockage, clearly you are at extreme high risk of death from CHD, and the benefits exceed the risks. For everyone else, I'm not at all sure very low cholesterol is a good thing...
I realize many will think I'm raining on their parade - not my intention... Just trying to warn people to think about what they may be doing to their bodies.
HubbleRules
:cool:
CobaltBlue
05-27-2005, 09:06 AM
Arizona, Hubble,
I respectfully disagree in part that cholesterol levels can be too low, and that part is only that the protective HDL can be too low. Examination of the predictive curves for heart disease are not J-shaped for the < 55 age group. Now, if you are talking overall mortality, including strokes, yes, there is a slight increase; however, the Japanese society has one of the lowest total cholesterol levels in the world, and to no surprise, the highest average life expectancy.
I wish that I had your lipid levels Arizona, because I might not have had a heart attack at age 35. My total at that time, right around the day of the MI was 133 mg/dL. Yes, the TG were near 150 and controlled by Tricor, and yes the HDL was 25 mg/dL. Certainly, there was years of abuse, sedentary lifestyle, nicotine that led to my demise. After the change to diet, my total C did drop down to 94 mg/dL (with almost 1:1 HDL: LDL). As time went on, my total C is now in the 130-150 mg/dL, but mainly because all this exercise :bouncing: has resulted in my HDL climbing to ~60 mg/dL.
At my worst, without meds, my HDL was near 25 mg/dL and my TG evaluated at 638 mg/dL with LDL not measured for that test (total est. 290 mg/dL). The best I can do without meds, keeping weight at normal BMI and running 5-10K a day is TG in the 30 mg/dL range, HDL in the low 60s, and LDL in the 80s. If I add Niacin to the mix (1500 mg), then I can bring the LDL down to the 60s and HDL to 70 mg/dL.
I read where you mentioned that at your worst, your HDL was 68 mg/dL. That is still in the top 5% among all individuals, and you did this with tobacco and not watching what you do. I think you said your highest HDL was in the 100s? Again, you are truly blessed, probably to the top 1-2%. From where you are, most of our cholesterol will look too low :D
Anyway Arizona, I do follow read your posts, watching for clues or tips that I can learn from you and apply to my life to improve my cholesterol (realizing full well that my dysfunctional system is probably mostly to blame).
Hubble, I agree with you in part, also, that if you have CHD, no cholesterol level can be too low. Going by stats in just about all of the heart disease studies, one can't do much better than that.
Where I disagree is when people become concerned about the total C getting too low. For many societies, the genetics may just have evolved to require that for best health the cholesterol has to be that low (e.g. Japanese) and that even totals in the 150 mg/dL may be at the higher end of their levels and indicative of increased heart disease risk. (What I am finding out from checking with current family members/relatives is that my ancestry is similar, where CHD occurs in those with seemingly normal total C's but is absent when the cholesterol levels are in the 100-130 mg/dL range). I feel the worry over too low total is similar to the concern we hear all the time about eating too much fish and as a result having too great of a mercury intake.... To name someone that has died of mercury poisoning from eating an overabundance of fish? I can't think of one, but I certainly can name a few people in my immediate family that have died of heart disease.
Hubble, I also noticed when you posted your latest result that your TG was 434 mg/dL--sounds like you are cursed the same way I am (or was) :eek: Although, your HDL is higher than mine ran when my TG were scorchingly high, but then again, your LDL are too...anyway...
I can tell you that when I was at 638 mg/dL, I did not drink any alcohol, and now, when I am in the 30s-50 mg/dL TG range, I do drink a few glasses of wine each night (or a little beer, Armagnac, etc.), including the night before my blood draws. The only time I avoid alcohol is when I am training up for a race, and even then, I just stop drinking for a week or two before the race. You had mentioned that you wanted to lose 20 lbs and increase exercise, and I found that those two factors, far above any dietary change, alcohol ingestion, or pill taking that I tried had a much, much, much (and I stress much) greater impact on getting improved lipids (and removing all type 2 diabetic/IGT symtptoms).
Good Luck on your test on the 24th--hopefully the weight loss and exercise has your lipid panels improved. My next go around is mid-July and I hoping to see HDL>LDL since I requested to add 1000 mg niacin back to my pill cocktail.
I respectfully disagree in part that cholesterol levels can be too low, and that part is only that the protective HDL can be too low. Examination of the predictive curves for heart disease are not J-shaped for the < 55 age group. Now, if you are talking overall mortality, including strokes, yes, there is a slight increase; however, the Japanese society has one of the lowest total cholesterol levels in the world, and to no surprise, the highest average life expectancy.
I wish that I had your lipid levels Arizona, because I might not have had a heart attack at age 35. My total at that time, right around the day of the MI was 133 mg/dL. Yes, the TG were near 150 and controlled by Tricor, and yes the HDL was 25 mg/dL. Certainly, there was years of abuse, sedentary lifestyle, nicotine that led to my demise. After the change to diet, my total C did drop down to 94 mg/dL (with almost 1:1 HDL: LDL). As time went on, my total C is now in the 130-150 mg/dL, but mainly because all this exercise :bouncing: has resulted in my HDL climbing to ~60 mg/dL.
At my worst, without meds, my HDL was near 25 mg/dL and my TG evaluated at 638 mg/dL with LDL not measured for that test (total est. 290 mg/dL). The best I can do without meds, keeping weight at normal BMI and running 5-10K a day is TG in the 30 mg/dL range, HDL in the low 60s, and LDL in the 80s. If I add Niacin to the mix (1500 mg), then I can bring the LDL down to the 60s and HDL to 70 mg/dL.
I read where you mentioned that at your worst, your HDL was 68 mg/dL. That is still in the top 5% among all individuals, and you did this with tobacco and not watching what you do. I think you said your highest HDL was in the 100s? Again, you are truly blessed, probably to the top 1-2%. From where you are, most of our cholesterol will look too low :D
Anyway Arizona, I do follow read your posts, watching for clues or tips that I can learn from you and apply to my life to improve my cholesterol (realizing full well that my dysfunctional system is probably mostly to blame).
Hubble, I agree with you in part, also, that if you have CHD, no cholesterol level can be too low. Going by stats in just about all of the heart disease studies, one can't do much better than that.
Where I disagree is when people become concerned about the total C getting too low. For many societies, the genetics may just have evolved to require that for best health the cholesterol has to be that low (e.g. Japanese) and that even totals in the 150 mg/dL may be at the higher end of their levels and indicative of increased heart disease risk. (What I am finding out from checking with current family members/relatives is that my ancestry is similar, where CHD occurs in those with seemingly normal total C's but is absent when the cholesterol levels are in the 100-130 mg/dL range). I feel the worry over too low total is similar to the concern we hear all the time about eating too much fish and as a result having too great of a mercury intake.... To name someone that has died of mercury poisoning from eating an overabundance of fish? I can't think of one, but I certainly can name a few people in my immediate family that have died of heart disease.
Hubble, I also noticed when you posted your latest result that your TG was 434 mg/dL--sounds like you are cursed the same way I am (or was) :eek: Although, your HDL is higher than mine ran when my TG were scorchingly high, but then again, your LDL are too...anyway...
I can tell you that when I was at 638 mg/dL, I did not drink any alcohol, and now, when I am in the 30s-50 mg/dL TG range, I do drink a few glasses of wine each night (or a little beer, Armagnac, etc.), including the night before my blood draws. The only time I avoid alcohol is when I am training up for a race, and even then, I just stop drinking for a week or two before the race. You had mentioned that you wanted to lose 20 lbs and increase exercise, and I found that those two factors, far above any dietary change, alcohol ingestion, or pill taking that I tried had a much, much, much (and I stress much) greater impact on getting improved lipids (and removing all type 2 diabetic/IGT symtptoms).
Good Luck on your test on the 24th--hopefully the weight loss and exercise has your lipid panels improved. My next go around is mid-July and I hoping to see HDL>LDL since I requested to add 1000 mg niacin back to my pill cocktail.
HubbleRules
05-27-2005, 05:12 PM
Cobalt,
Thanks for the feedback.
I respect your opinion - let's just agree to disagree. I still think that in almost anything, the extremes (high or low) are usually bad. I think TC can go too low and be dangerous. I remember seeing a curve of a study I and I think it was from Japan) where the group with the lowest overall mortality was around 220. It increased below 160 or above about 250... Cholesterol is a vital substance - taking to extremely low levels can't be good IMHO.
I've read articles by a number of doctors who feel the same way.
In any event, if ANYBODY really knew the answers to these questions (and I don't think anyone does), we wouldn't have 700,000 dying of heart disease each year...
I'll let you know my numbers next time around.... I think my last test was a bit of a fluke - probably due to the beer I had the night before. I'm staying off alcohol 48 hours before the next test. I'm also on Niacin (500mg/day) now - so hopefully my HDL will go up...
I hope I can get my TG down like you did - that was an amazing change for you - congratulations.
Anyhow, I don't really subscribe to the idea that cholesterol is the main culprit in CHD - I think inflammation is probably a more important causative factor - and measures like Homocysteine and CRP are more important than LDL... I'm following the Pauling Therapy just in case...
Best of luck to you!!
HubbleRules
:cool:
Thanks for the feedback.
I respect your opinion - let's just agree to disagree. I still think that in almost anything, the extremes (high or low) are usually bad. I think TC can go too low and be dangerous. I remember seeing a curve of a study I and I think it was from Japan) where the group with the lowest overall mortality was around 220. It increased below 160 or above about 250... Cholesterol is a vital substance - taking to extremely low levels can't be good IMHO.
I've read articles by a number of doctors who feel the same way.
In any event, if ANYBODY really knew the answers to these questions (and I don't think anyone does), we wouldn't have 700,000 dying of heart disease each year...
I'll let you know my numbers next time around.... I think my last test was a bit of a fluke - probably due to the beer I had the night before. I'm staying off alcohol 48 hours before the next test. I'm also on Niacin (500mg/day) now - so hopefully my HDL will go up...
I hope I can get my TG down like you did - that was an amazing change for you - congratulations.
Anyhow, I don't really subscribe to the idea that cholesterol is the main culprit in CHD - I think inflammation is probably a more important causative factor - and measures like Homocysteine and CRP are more important than LDL... I'm following the Pauling Therapy just in case...
Best of luck to you!!
HubbleRules
:cool:
linda115
05-27-2005, 07:42 PM
Just picked up my blood test results from the doctor's office. Here are the detailed results after two months of Vytorin:
Total Cholesterol - 139 (range 100-199)
Triglycerides - 97 (range 0-149)
HDL - 58 (range 40-59)
VLDL - 19 (range 5-40)
LDL - 62 (range 0-99)
LDL/HDL ratio - 1.1 (range 0.0-3.2)
T4 Free - 1.47 (range 0.61-1.76)
TSH - 3.359 (range 0.35-5.5)
As you can see, there is a lower limit for total cholesterol, HDL, VLDL and upper limit for all.
I do agree that we should always stay within the recommended range. My doctor will lower my Vytorin dosage. My next check up will be in 3 months.
Have a Blessed Memorial Weekend,
Linda
Total Cholesterol - 139 (range 100-199)
Triglycerides - 97 (range 0-149)
HDL - 58 (range 40-59)
VLDL - 19 (range 5-40)
LDL - 62 (range 0-99)
LDL/HDL ratio - 1.1 (range 0.0-3.2)
T4 Free - 1.47 (range 0.61-1.76)
TSH - 3.359 (range 0.35-5.5)
As you can see, there is a lower limit for total cholesterol, HDL, VLDL and upper limit for all.
I do agree that we should always stay within the recommended range. My doctor will lower my Vytorin dosage. My next check up will be in 3 months.
Have a Blessed Memorial Weekend,
Linda
HubbleRules
05-27-2005, 07:57 PM
Congratulations Linda!!
Keep up the good work...
HubbleRules
:cool:
Keep up the good work...
HubbleRules
:cool:
ARIZONA73
05-27-2005, 09:58 PM
Linda,
I'm not sure exactly what those ranges are supposed to imply. Perhaps they pertain to statistical averages. Just because the range for HDL is stated as 40-59 doesn't mean that it must remain within that range. If your HDL goes beyond 59, so much the better. I don't think a person's HDL can be too high. At least, I've never heard of such a case. When it comes to lipids, whether it be LDL, TC, or triglycerides, risk is often measured as a ratio against HDL. With that in mind, let's say for example that your HDL is 85. Well, at that point those ranges would become much less significant. As I said, everything is expressed as a ratio against your HDL, which is why that number is so important.
As a general guide, your TC/HDL ratio should be 4.0 or less. With an HDL of 85, your total cholesterol can be well above 199 and you would still have a favorable risk ratio.
Your LDL/HDL ratio should be 2.5 or less. With that in mind, your LDL can certainly be higher than 99 with and HDL of 85.
IDEALLY, your triglyceride/HDL ratio should be around 1.0. A ratio of 2.0 is considered normal. Anything much higher than 2.0, with triglycerides over 100, and you will carry a higher than normal risk.
One important goal should be to bring triglycerides down into a very favorable range, preferably below 100. As triglycerides drop, HDL often tends to rise. Lifestyle and dietary changes, together with HDL promoting supplements can often result in favorable lipid values which carry significantly less risk. IF a person can successfully do this (I know it's NOT easy for many people), then I think that any concern about LDL becomes much less of an issue, and one which is really not worth losing any sleep over.
I'm not sure exactly what those ranges are supposed to imply. Perhaps they pertain to statistical averages. Just because the range for HDL is stated as 40-59 doesn't mean that it must remain within that range. If your HDL goes beyond 59, so much the better. I don't think a person's HDL can be too high. At least, I've never heard of such a case. When it comes to lipids, whether it be LDL, TC, or triglycerides, risk is often measured as a ratio against HDL. With that in mind, let's say for example that your HDL is 85. Well, at that point those ranges would become much less significant. As I said, everything is expressed as a ratio against your HDL, which is why that number is so important.
As a general guide, your TC/HDL ratio should be 4.0 or less. With an HDL of 85, your total cholesterol can be well above 199 and you would still have a favorable risk ratio.
Your LDL/HDL ratio should be 2.5 or less. With that in mind, your LDL can certainly be higher than 99 with and HDL of 85.
IDEALLY, your triglyceride/HDL ratio should be around 1.0. A ratio of 2.0 is considered normal. Anything much higher than 2.0, with triglycerides over 100, and you will carry a higher than normal risk.
One important goal should be to bring triglycerides down into a very favorable range, preferably below 100. As triglycerides drop, HDL often tends to rise. Lifestyle and dietary changes, together with HDL promoting supplements can often result in favorable lipid values which carry significantly less risk. IF a person can successfully do this (I know it's NOT easy for many people), then I think that any concern about LDL becomes much less of an issue, and one which is really not worth losing any sleep over.
linda115
05-27-2005, 10:19 PM
ARIZONA73,
I am confused. My husband's LDL/HDL ratio is 4.0 (212/53). Trig/HDL is 2.5 (134/53) Is he at risk?.
I am confused. My husband's LDL/HDL ratio is 4.0 (212/53). Trig/HDL is 2.5 (134/53) Is he at risk?.
ARIZONA73
05-28-2005, 12:12 AM
Linda,
I think that in general we are all at risk to one extent or another, myself included. But as far as triglycerides are concerned, that is probably the easiest number to bring into line without the use of any drugs. For the majority of people, it is simply a matter of reducing carbohydrates, mainly starches and sugars. My father is diabetic, and diabetics' triglycerides often run high. But my father has managed to lower his triglycerides to well under 100 with dietary measures, simply by reducing his consumption of certain forms of carbs, mainly the high glycemic ones, like bread, potatoes, corn, and cutting back dramatically on junk food snacks. In fact, sometimes his trigs are even lower than mine! I'm not always quite as careful as he is. Yes, I suppose your husband is at somewhat higher than normal risk, but it's nothing that can't be corrected. I think if he can bring that number down closer to 100 or less, then he will be in much better shape overall.
You know, it really amazes me that doctors don't pay nearly as much attention to triglycerides as they should. Instead, they are always far too preoccupied with LDL numbers. Maybe that's because statins were designed to lower LDL, not triglycerides. Statins are a blockbuster bonanza, and that's what doctors are encouraged to prescribe.
I think that in general we are all at risk to one extent or another, myself included. But as far as triglycerides are concerned, that is probably the easiest number to bring into line without the use of any drugs. For the majority of people, it is simply a matter of reducing carbohydrates, mainly starches and sugars. My father is diabetic, and diabetics' triglycerides often run high. But my father has managed to lower his triglycerides to well under 100 with dietary measures, simply by reducing his consumption of certain forms of carbs, mainly the high glycemic ones, like bread, potatoes, corn, and cutting back dramatically on junk food snacks. In fact, sometimes his trigs are even lower than mine! I'm not always quite as careful as he is. Yes, I suppose your husband is at somewhat higher than normal risk, but it's nothing that can't be corrected. I think if he can bring that number down closer to 100 or less, then he will be in much better shape overall.
You know, it really amazes me that doctors don't pay nearly as much attention to triglycerides as they should. Instead, they are always far too preoccupied with LDL numbers. Maybe that's because statins were designed to lower LDL, not triglycerides. Statins are a blockbuster bonanza, and that's what doctors are encouraged to prescribe.
Lenin
05-28-2005, 09:57 AM
Linda,
He's at more risk than you but nothing to worry about. With some gentle dietary nudges he should be abole to move the TC down below 200.
He's at more risk than you but nothing to worry about. With some gentle dietary nudges he should be abole to move the TC down below 200.
linda115
05-28-2005, 10:10 AM
Thank you ARIZONA & Lenin. My husband and I have made dietary changes and have exercised regularly. In due times, I hope that we will both be in better health.
Blessings,
Linda
Blessings,
Linda
spoindex
08-08-2005, 11:12 AM
Just a note about "high" triglycerides. My son (who doesnt drink, is skinny as a rail and watches his diet) has a triglyceride level of more than 2000. I am overweight and somewhat out of control on my food intake. fats etc. and my tri**level is around 1600. I dieted religously for months, lost a lot of weight and only went 700 on the tri** got discouraged went back to FOOD tried Zetia for awhile...now on vytorin...hoping for the better. will know next month....when triglycerides are this high is extremely difficult to bring down....according to an article I read published by Oregon Health Sciences University.