I am posting here for my cubemate at work and I told him I thought his total cholesterol was too low. It is presently at 130. His doctor has him taking Niaspan (1500 mg.) and Lovastatin (40 mg.)
The doctor recently increased the dosage of the two above drugs from 1000 mg. and 20 mg. respectively. I told my friend that I thought I had read somewhere that any reading below a total cholesterol of 150 is dangerous.
Can anyone support this claim?

Yes, his cholesterol is too low. You might check out the japanese heart study on cholesterol.

Depends upon whether he has heart disease or not....or whether he has multiple risk factors for heart disease.

If he already has heart disease, it is appropriate for his levels to be that low, despite rumors on this board to the contrary. As best as I can determine, most cases of low cholesterol associated with mortality are in people with such things as advanced cancer (that doesn't mean the low cholesterol killed them; it means the cancer caused the low cholesterol AND killed them).

The individual HDL, LDL, and triglyceride levels are probably more important than the total. My guess is that if he is taking Niaspan, he has HDL ("good" cholesterol) that is too low and triglycerides that are too high, both of which are (in my opinion) more of a risk factor for heart disease than high LDL or high total cholesterol.

I'm doing just fine with a total less than 150...nothing at all dangerous that I can see, though I do take CoQ10 along with Niaspan and Lipitor (I had a 99% blockage in a major coronary artery 2 1/2 years ago so it was absolutely imperative that I get my HDL up and my LDL and total down).

No Connie, it is not alright to have cholesterol that low. And no we are not just posting rumors here. Also it is another mistake that people label LDL bad and HDL good. They are both lipds and both imparitive to the human body. Cholesterol is imparitive to the immune system. It is a known fact that lowering cholesterol causes a lowered immunity.

I'm still looking for those studies that say I, the American Heart Association, dozens of scientific studies published over the last 20+ years, and every cardiologist I have ever met are wrong....can't find a single one. I've asked here repeatedly for the name of the study authors and the date/journal in which it/they were published...The one that is always referred to is only an article that I cannot find the actual study (or even an abstract) for...and as best as I can determine, the article doesn't say what the "high cholesterol numbers are good," "low cholesterol numbers are bad," "no one should ever take statins" etc. people say it says.

I agree that it is oversimplification and technically inappropriate to call it "good" and "bad" cholesterol which is why I always use quotes, but the terms do convey a concept that is important for people to understand.

And I agree that there are multiple risk factors for heart disease and that LDL and/or total cholesterol is probably not the major one.

And I know/agree that the body needs cholesterol to function.

That said, I stand by my original response....it all depends upon whether he already has heart disease, and whether he has multiple risk factors for heart disease as to whether he should be aggressively attempting to keep/lower his numbers. My guess is his doctor increased the Niaspan in order to INCREASE his HDL number.

You might try some of the following. Look up Golomb low cholesterol and increased mortality. Dr. GOlomb is the project leader for the UCSD Statin Study. The Japanese tese was the Japanese Lipid Intervention Trial (J-LIT). The mevalnate pathway should also be of interest as stains medications cause a flaw at the very beginning of the pathway that just cascades as the pathway progresses. Another paper that does give statins some "deserved" credit it the paper LDL Cholesterol "BAD" cholesterol or Bad Science. it was in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10, Number 3, Fall 2005. A Test by Weitz-Schmidt and coworkers modified lovastatin (therefore making a desinger drug). Their drug completely disabled the cholesterol lowering activities, but many of the other properties were still beneficial. I never said before that statins could not help with heart disease. I did say I believe, and many others, that statins ability to help is NOT due to its cholesterol lowering properties. Many test and trails support this. The problem with the statin studies is that they report Heart related problems. WHile it is probably true (in most groups) that heart incidents are reduced, overall all-cause mortality is greater. In the PROVE Trial with touted higher doses of statins, and lower cholesterol is better there was not a difference in the all-cause mortality..because of the increase in the noncardiovascular deaths. In many of the tests (statin trials) improvements were seen before cholesterol was reduced. By reading the trials, it is easy to see how the results were manipulated so that the desired results were reported. I don't mean by manipulated, changing the results. Just what was reported and what wasn't. If you ask the White Star Line (Titanic) if their passengers arrived in New York. They could truthfully answer yes. We know the rest of the story.

THe manager at my gym ate steak almost every day and had miserable blood lipid levels...steak was the only food he liked.
He had a heart attack at age 43 and triple bypass immediately afterwards. He now takes Lipitor, Lopid, and Zetia. His LDL is lower than his age now (LDL 42) and his cardiologist is pleased as punch; he hasn't had a steak in 6 months and feels GOOD.

With heart disease, there is no sensible lower limit on cholesterol. As low as you can get is right for you.

Nonsense about "cholesterol doesn't matter" is just dangerous misinformation. It only doesn't matter for people who have no concern about having a heart attack, crippling angina, and an early death.

Yes lenin and there is no lower limit on losing weight either. I'd say the gym manager did not have a balanced diet. I still think many people who think getting their cholesterol numbers lower will solve everything are misinformed. THe mere assumption that cholesterol is the culprit had caused many problems with some people that doctors fail to or will not recognize. I believe that people are looking at increased longevity, not merely "acceptable" numbers. People are trading one problem for another at an immence cost to the public. Misinformation to some is information contrary to what they believe; however, it doesn't make it untrue.

i do not have heart disease, am age 41, active female - with a total cholesterol of 99; LDL 19; HDL 71 and Triglicerides 58 (as of March 9, 2007). was told by my chiropractor today my choles. was too low, he thinks it might there might be an issue iwth my liver. my regular doctor did not see numbers as a problem.

i guess doctors do not generaly see numbers this low...

JTL,

Your doctor is correct; your chiropractor is wrong...and speaking WAY out of his field.

My husband had triple heart bypass a year ago. He has coronary heart disease, runs in his family and has nothing to do with what he eats, he eats pretty healthy. His total cholesterol is 125, his doctor wants it to be down to at least 100. I do believe that it all has to do if you have heart disease, and by the way, his Doctor is at UCLA, good doctors.

HIs TOTAL cholesterol is 125? That is too low. I don't care if his doctor is at UCLA. My mother had uninformed doctors at Mayo also.

That cholesterol level is fine. In places like Okinawa the elders typically have cholesterol below 150mg/dl. They also have 80% fewer heart disease and live the longest. As long as low cholesterol isn't caused by some underlying disease such as cancer, then the chances are its fine as long as blood pressure is also low because high bp and low cholesterol could set one up for some problems with bleeding because cholesterol repairs the artery walls.

There is low cholesterol caused by disease which is a bad thing, and then there is low cholesterol caused by eating a healthy low calorie diet. Whcih is good. or there is statins, which is still up for debate by how much they actually help.

sunny,

After a triple bypass, the lower your husband can get his blood-fats (cholesterol), the better. The veins that are used in bypass are even MORE prone to atherosclerosis than the diseased arteries they replaced.
If he can achieve a steady total cholesterol under 100, the more power to him...but 125 is still quite good.

sunny,

After a triple bypass, the lower your husband can get his blood-fats (cholesterol), the better. The veins that are used in bypass are even MORE prone to atherosclerosis than the diseased arteries they replaced.
If he can achieve a steady total cholesterol under 100, the more power to him...but 125 is still quite good.

Thanks to Lenin for the support and also thanks to the Adventurer, I do believe this to be true, we will keep trying to get it lower, I think more exercise is going to be the answer as he is already walking 3 miles a day or longer.

Sunny

A total cholesterol under 100 is not good at all when it is done with medication. There is not a study at any time that even suggest this, in fact studies, and long term studies suggest the opposite. I hope he is taking Coq10 and fish oil.