highlp
02-14-2007, 02:19 PM
I am a healthy 53 year old male.
Here are my latest cholesterol numbers:
Total Cholesterol - 332
LDL - 277
HDL -64
Tri - 81
LP(a) - 197 (normal is 30)
As you can see a lot to be concerned about and these are what my numbers are most of the time. Basically I am a cholesterol producing machine.
Now for the good news:
I exercise regularly, follow a sensible diet, and take a few supplements - fish oil, vit C, vit E, COQ-10.
Instead of going the statin route I monitor myself via other tests, ie:
Heart Scan (calcium scoring) - Perfect Score - 0 - No Plaque
Thallium Stress - Perfect
Cardio Angiography - Perfect Score - No hard or soft plaque
CRP - negative
LDL Particle Size - Type A - large particles
For those of you that are worried about your numbers it appears based on my history that cholesterol is not the only factor but one of a number of factors to consider.
Here are my latest cholesterol numbers:
Total Cholesterol - 332
LDL - 277
HDL -64
Tri - 81
LP(a) - 197 (normal is 30)
As you can see a lot to be concerned about and these are what my numbers are most of the time. Basically I am a cholesterol producing machine.
Now for the good news:
I exercise regularly, follow a sensible diet, and take a few supplements - fish oil, vit C, vit E, COQ-10.
Instead of going the statin route I monitor myself via other tests, ie:
Heart Scan (calcium scoring) - Perfect Score - 0 - No Plaque
Thallium Stress - Perfect
Cardio Angiography - Perfect Score - No hard or soft plaque
CRP - negative
LDL Particle Size - Type A - large particles
For those of you that are worried about your numbers it appears based on my history that cholesterol is not the only factor but one of a number of factors to consider.
Sponsor
Lulubells
02-14-2007, 03:21 PM
I think the heart/cholesterol thing is all hype to sell harmful drugs to unsuspecting healthy people.
My Grandmother ate a bowl of bacon grease EVERY morning with a biscuit dripping in butter. Butter was added to everything she cooked and everything was fried in hog lard. Finding cakes and pies at Grandma's was the norm in those days. She lived to the ripe old age of 91 and Grand Dad lived to 85.. Neither had heart problems.
My own Mom (a smoker) had high cholesterol (365) for years before she died of cancer at 81. She never had a sign of heart disease.
I no longer buy into all that cholesterol propaganda after seeing what the lower numbers did to my health and body and thinking back on my family history. EVERY cell in our bodies need cholesterol and I think one day all this will come out and blow things wide open for the scam it is.
(This is MY opinion based on what I am learning about it)
My Grandmother ate a bowl of bacon grease EVERY morning with a biscuit dripping in butter. Butter was added to everything she cooked and everything was fried in hog lard. Finding cakes and pies at Grandma's was the norm in those days. She lived to the ripe old age of 91 and Grand Dad lived to 85.. Neither had heart problems.
My own Mom (a smoker) had high cholesterol (365) for years before she died of cancer at 81. She never had a sign of heart disease.
I no longer buy into all that cholesterol propaganda after seeing what the lower numbers did to my health and body and thinking back on my family history. EVERY cell in our bodies need cholesterol and I think one day all this will come out and blow things wide open for the scam it is.
(This is MY opinion based on what I am learning about it)
Lenin
02-15-2007, 10:08 AM
highlp,
Your overall blood lipid is truly horrible, and the worst is the Lp(a)...I thought mine was the highest on record. What you have going for you are excellent triglycerides and HDL.
I am glad your tests showed no arterial blockages. I hope that continues for you.
Your overall blood lipid is truly horrible, and the worst is the Lp(a)...I thought mine was the highest on record. What you have going for you are excellent triglycerides and HDL.
I am glad your tests showed no arterial blockages. I hope that continues for you.
highlp
02-16-2007, 02:30 PM
Since my lp(a) is so high, I have done quite a bit of research on lp(a) and have found out the following:
1) It appears that the reference range of what is considered high needs to be adjusted higher, although the labs haven't changed their reference range values yet.
2) Since it cannot be treated with medications and they are not sure of its implications (must studies are split 50/50 between problem and not a problem) most people don't test for it.
3) Although niacin does reduce it (approx. 30%), the doses needed of 2-3 grams per day cannot be tolerated well. Apparently you only get the benefit with regular release Niacin (not slow release).
4) Interestingly enough, if I drop my fat intake my lp(a) goes up higher. Almost like my body adjusts somehow.
I also know a few people whose lp(a) is over 300. Some have issues and some don't.
1) It appears that the reference range of what is considered high needs to be adjusted higher, although the labs haven't changed their reference range values yet.
2) Since it cannot be treated with medications and they are not sure of its implications (must studies are split 50/50 between problem and not a problem) most people don't test for it.
3) Although niacin does reduce it (approx. 30%), the doses needed of 2-3 grams per day cannot be tolerated well. Apparently you only get the benefit with regular release Niacin (not slow release).
4) Interestingly enough, if I drop my fat intake my lp(a) goes up higher. Almost like my body adjusts somehow.
I also know a few people whose lp(a) is over 300. Some have issues and some don't.
NHone
02-17-2007, 01:09 AM
L(p)a can be treated with fish oil.
chj
02-17-2007, 05:22 AM
It is very interesting what you say about your fat intake highlp. When I discovered I had high cholesterol ,about 300, and was told I was almost at death door:eek: , I cut out all animal fat. My hdl got to 50. After a while I started to eat more "normal" again and included some animal fat and started to drink my normal amount of wine again and my hdl went up to 71. I should add also that I do eat healthily with no trans fats and no high carbs. So there is maybe a good connection between some animal fat and wine that makes the hdl go up. My TC is around 260 without statins now and I feel happy with that.With statins it hovered around 215-220 together with a lot of stiffness and not feeling good at all. Slowly, lot of research is emerging that is showing that the cholesterol issue is very hiped up and many people who has been put on statins should not have. I think guidlines for "normal" cholesterol will have to go up, which will of course not please the drug companies!
Lenin
02-17-2007, 09:12 AM
highlp,
Make sure that you are comparing apples to apples when you research Lp(a) becasue they have just drastically changed the testing methodology (rather than just adjusted the range.)
NOW the testing is done for the number of molecules of Lp(a)<Nmol/L> rather than the weight <mg./dL.> This places more weight on people who form smaller Lp(a) molecules with fewer Kringle units. It is these plasminogen-like Kringle units seem responsible for initiating clotting with fibrin. The downside of the testing change is the inability to chart one's progress or lack of it through the methodology change because the two methods are not correllatable to one another.
WHat I have found is that alcohol and fish oil have zero effect on my Lp(a) and niacin at 500-1000 mg./day has a very slight effect...I cannot take more niacing than that because more will cause massive flushing. I think the only proven way of getting anything APPROACHING a normal Lp(a) is to get new parents...or at least ONE of them (in my case, my mother...and it killed her!)
My last reading was 111 nmol/L...that's with the new standard of <75.
From my shallow understanding of what makes Lp(a) so atherogenic, it seems that the Kringle apoproteins <long tangly curlykews> are a close match for plasminogen, which it stands in for as a replacement. Plasminogen keeps fibrinogen from initiating too easy clotting whereas the effect is nullified by replacing plasminogen with this "fake" plasminogens. The research on the methodology of the Kringles and how they do their damage seems a bit sketchy though.
Suffice to say, it seems that Lp(a) might be the very most atherogenic particle in the bloodstream and it is VERY hard to lower it since how much and what kind of Lp(a) one makes is genetically determined.
A Nobel prize awaits someone who determines an effective way to block this particle.
If you WANT to try a test on a supplement, a single unsubstantiated claim has been made for NAC (N-acetyl cysteine) and it's ability to DRASTICALLY lower Lp(a). I have done one too many of these trials of pie-in-the-sky supplements over my many years and been too disappointed to have the patience for yet another. But if you are less jaded than I ;) why not give it a go and let us know at your next bloodtest if there was any effect.
Make sure that you are comparing apples to apples when you research Lp(a) becasue they have just drastically changed the testing methodology (rather than just adjusted the range.)
NOW the testing is done for the number of molecules of Lp(a)<Nmol/L> rather than the weight <mg./dL.> This places more weight on people who form smaller Lp(a) molecules with fewer Kringle units. It is these plasminogen-like Kringle units seem responsible for initiating clotting with fibrin. The downside of the testing change is the inability to chart one's progress or lack of it through the methodology change because the two methods are not correllatable to one another.
WHat I have found is that alcohol and fish oil have zero effect on my Lp(a) and niacin at 500-1000 mg./day has a very slight effect...I cannot take more niacing than that because more will cause massive flushing. I think the only proven way of getting anything APPROACHING a normal Lp(a) is to get new parents...or at least ONE of them (in my case, my mother...and it killed her!)
My last reading was 111 nmol/L...that's with the new standard of <75.
From my shallow understanding of what makes Lp(a) so atherogenic, it seems that the Kringle apoproteins <long tangly curlykews> are a close match for plasminogen, which it stands in for as a replacement. Plasminogen keeps fibrinogen from initiating too easy clotting whereas the effect is nullified by replacing plasminogen with this "fake" plasminogens. The research on the methodology of the Kringles and how they do their damage seems a bit sketchy though.
Suffice to say, it seems that Lp(a) might be the very most atherogenic particle in the bloodstream and it is VERY hard to lower it since how much and what kind of Lp(a) one makes is genetically determined.
A Nobel prize awaits someone who determines an effective way to block this particle.
If you WANT to try a test on a supplement, a single unsubstantiated claim has been made for NAC (N-acetyl cysteine) and it's ability to DRASTICALLY lower Lp(a). I have done one too many of these trials of pie-in-the-sky supplements over my many years and been too disappointed to have the patience for yet another. But if you are less jaded than I ;) why not give it a go and let us know at your next bloodtest if there was any effect.
highlp
02-19-2007, 01:30 PM
Lenin,
Interesting information.
I have tried the following without any success at lowering my lp(a):
1) Fish Oil - no effect
2) Niacin - at approx 2-3 grams per day - 30% reduction
3) Vitamin C - no effect
4) NAC - no effect
5) L-Lysine and L-Proline - no effect
Perhaps the most important aspect of "bad" cholesterol is particle size.
Based on my lab reports, my LDL particle size is type A. (Type A - Large particles with less infiltration into endothelial wall of arteries, Type B- Smaller denser particles that easily pass into the artery walls).
More and more labs are offering this analysis of LDL particle size. Maybe something that people with high LDL should consider.
Since lp(a) is another class of "bad" LDL I would assume that particle size would be the same for LDL and lp(a), ie: large particle = good, and smaller, denser particles = bad.
Any studies out there that look at particle size and its correlation to cardio disease?
Interesting information.
I have tried the following without any success at lowering my lp(a):
1) Fish Oil - no effect
2) Niacin - at approx 2-3 grams per day - 30% reduction
3) Vitamin C - no effect
4) NAC - no effect
5) L-Lysine and L-Proline - no effect
Perhaps the most important aspect of "bad" cholesterol is particle size.
Based on my lab reports, my LDL particle size is type A. (Type A - Large particles with less infiltration into endothelial wall of arteries, Type B- Smaller denser particles that easily pass into the artery walls).
More and more labs are offering this analysis of LDL particle size. Maybe something that people with high LDL should consider.
Since lp(a) is another class of "bad" LDL I would assume that particle size would be the same for LDL and lp(a), ie: large particle = good, and smaller, denser particles = bad.
Any studies out there that look at particle size and its correlation to cardio disease?
liverock
02-19-2007, 01:57 PM
Heres a study which lowered Lp(a) by an average of 22% using a highly absorbable brand of CoQ10 called Q-Gel. It also bumped up HDL a bit.Expensive but might be worth a trial.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10077397&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10077397&dopt=Abstract
Lenin
02-20-2007, 10:06 AM
Liverock,
I have tried 100 mg. and then 50 mg. CoQ-10 with no success at lowering my Lp(a) levels.
I must dispute that Indian study because it is too small and also because it showed that people on placebo showed an 8% improvement in their Lp(a)'s.
Also from Dr. Singh's study (found two of them on CoQ-10):
[removed]
This latter quote was from one of their studies using 200 mg./day.
I agree, that these studies need confirmation. It's too easy for a vitamin cartel to bribe a few doctors in India to run a small trial to get results confirming a supplement claim. Or else to run 20 such studies but report only one. If CoQ-qo was cheap, I'd try a trial with 200 mg./day but that would cost a great deal.
highlp,
Thanks for saving me the trouble of a trial with NAC.
I HAVE seen good data on the ramifications of Lp(a) molecule size on atherogenesis but my brain is foggy. If I can dig it up I'll report it.
I have tried 100 mg. and then 50 mg. CoQ-10 with no success at lowering my Lp(a) levels.
I must dispute that Indian study because it is too small and also because it showed that people on placebo showed an 8% improvement in their Lp(a)'s.
Also from Dr. Singh's study (found two of them on CoQ-10):
[removed]
This latter quote was from one of their studies using 200 mg./day.
I agree, that these studies need confirmation. It's too easy for a vitamin cartel to bribe a few doctors in India to run a small trial to get results confirming a supplement claim. Or else to run 20 such studies but report only one. If CoQ-qo was cheap, I'd try a trial with 200 mg./day but that would cost a great deal.
highlp,
Thanks for saving me the trouble of a trial with NAC.
I HAVE seen good data on the ramifications of Lp(a) molecule size on atherogenesis but my brain is foggy. If I can dig it up I'll report it.
Lenin
02-20-2007, 10:14 AM
Liverock,
I couldn't get that link so I will suppose that it is the same abstract that you showed.
I have tried 100 mg. and then 50 mg. CoQ-10 with no success at lowering my Lp(a) levels.
I must dispute that Indian study because it is too small and also because it showed that people on placebo showed an 8% improvement in their Lp(a)'s.
I agree, that these studies need confirmation.
highlp,
Thank you for saving me the trouble of a trial with NAC.
I have seen some data relating risk of atherogenesis with size of Lp(a) particles and if I find them again I'll pass them on.
I just came onto a study demonstrating that posprandial SATURATED fats (stearic acid) had a large increasing effect on Lp(a) for as long as 8 hours with a 5-fold increase at hour 5. Really strange was the finding that no appreciable increase was seen with trans-fats. How's THAT for an eye-opener.:dizzy:
I couldn't get that link so I will suppose that it is the same abstract that you showed.
I have tried 100 mg. and then 50 mg. CoQ-10 with no success at lowering my Lp(a) levels.
I must dispute that Indian study because it is too small and also because it showed that people on placebo showed an 8% improvement in their Lp(a)'s.
I agree, that these studies need confirmation.
highlp,
Thank you for saving me the trouble of a trial with NAC.
I have seen some data relating risk of atherogenesis with size of Lp(a) particles and if I find them again I'll pass them on.
I just came onto a study demonstrating that posprandial SATURATED fats (stearic acid) had a large increasing effect on Lp(a) for as long as 8 hours with a 5-fold increase at hour 5. Really strange was the finding that no appreciable increase was seen with trans-fats. How's THAT for an eye-opener.:dizzy:
highlp
02-20-2007, 10:33 AM
I have been taking CQ-10 for many years and over that time I have seen no effect on my lp(a) levels.
The study that was referenced is from 1999.
The study that was referenced is from 1999.
liverock
02-21-2007, 01:26 PM
Lenin,
You may well be right about the CoQ10, but the dosage you are talking about having taken, 100mg and 50 mg, are no where near the dosage mentioned in the Singh trial. The amount of Q-Gel CoQ10 used, 120mg per day, is equivelant to 500mg of the normal "bread and butter' Coq10. Thats why Q-Gel costs 4 times the price.:eek:
lp,
You mentioned having taken NAC and it did not work at lowering your Lp(a).
In the study reported on in the 'Lancet' about lowering Lp(a) with NAC,the dosage of NAC was 2 grams per day for 4 weeks and then 4 grams per day for another 4 weeks which are pretty hefty dosages, way above the normal 500mg per day.
What was the dosage you tried?
You may well be right about the CoQ10, but the dosage you are talking about having taken, 100mg and 50 mg, are no where near the dosage mentioned in the Singh trial. The amount of Q-Gel CoQ10 used, 120mg per day, is equivelant to 500mg of the normal "bread and butter' Coq10. Thats why Q-Gel costs 4 times the price.:eek:
lp,
You mentioned having taken NAC and it did not work at lowering your Lp(a).
In the study reported on in the 'Lancet' about lowering Lp(a) with NAC,the dosage of NAC was 2 grams per day for 4 weeks and then 4 grams per day for another 4 weeks which are pretty hefty dosages, way above the normal 500mg per day.
What was the dosage you tried?
highlp
02-28-2007, 05:30 PM
I took 1 gram of NAC for approximately 90 days (in between blood tests) and saw no difference at the next blood test so I stopped.
I still think that LDL Particle size is a big part of the equation and that most people have not been exposed to what it means and most physicians do not test for it at all.
I still think that LDL Particle size is a big part of the equation and that most people have not been exposed to what it means and most physicians do not test for it at all.
Lenin
03-01-2007, 08:51 AM
liverock,
I have looked with a jaundiced eye at that "Q-gel" promotion...seems a little fishy to me, not unlike touting expensive BAYER aspirin over the half-penny dollar store stuff.
Anyhoo, the form of Co-Q10 that I have always taken was called "Q-Sorb."
Is that supposed to be the same as "Q-Gel?:D
I have looked with a jaundiced eye at that "Q-gel" promotion...seems a little fishy to me, not unlike touting expensive BAYER aspirin over the half-penny dollar store stuff.
Anyhoo, the form of Co-Q10 that I have always taken was called "Q-Sorb."
Is that supposed to be the same as "Q-Gel?:D
NHone
03-02-2007, 12:19 AM
I have talked to people that have done major "published" tests on Coq10 and parkinsons. They used the Coq10 wafers. They said there is no difference in the Coq10s that are available. They are all absorbed. The only reason they used the wafers was that it had no fillers.... (they were using larger quantities of Coq10).... and didn't want to problems of numerous pills. Coq10 may not effect your numbers (but it is a vital nutrient in the body)....but then again everyone seems to be obsessed with numbers.
Mr. Detail
03-24-2007, 08:51 AM
highlp;
Can you please enlighten me on the best way to go about getting those tests you mentioned? (i.e. Heart Scan, Cardio Angiography, etc.)
Were these tests you had done covered by your health insurance or did you pay for them out of pocket? I would like to get them done also but not sure how to approach them.
Thanks in advance.
Can you please enlighten me on the best way to go about getting those tests you mentioned? (i.e. Heart Scan, Cardio Angiography, etc.)
Were these tests you had done covered by your health insurance or did you pay for them out of pocket? I would like to get them done also but not sure how to approach them.
Thanks in advance.