It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



High Cholesterol Message Board


High Cholesterol Board Index


<150 has long been the "bullet proof" number quoted from results taken from the famous framingham study. That figure originally didn't have specific HDL/LDL numbers though because for many years that study didn't specifically measure them.

How old is the Silvertein article, for it seems odd to emphasize only total cholesterol without discussing its components? In any case, I'd certainly like to know why a cholesterol level below 150, or even 130 allows for regression _regardless_ of its constituents.

<150 has _always_ been my goal since I read the framingham study. I've never understood why a doctor or a patient would settle for less than halting atherosclerosis, and my personal preference is reversal.

Also, while the figure of <150, and the earlier figure for LDL quoted at <75 is likely to be a VERY good number, and far better than the p**s-weak numbers that used to be quoted of <100 LDL and less than 200 total, there are definately exceptions.

I noted my friend in an earlier example: tc 205, HDL 75. Her tc/HDL ratio is less than 2.75 even though she's over 200, and she's a smoker, and she comes from a very long lived family. I would give her slightly better odds as someone with 150 tc and HDL of say 35 and a tc/HDL ratio of 4.28.

The individual with a generic 150 and low HDL may be doing well because:
a) He's not making very much LDL, so there's little to remove
b) His HDL may be more efficient than the measured level of 35 indicates
c) His LDL level subcomponents may be less negative than the number indicates
d) Some combination of all of the above

It is even possible that once you get your LDL down to some magic number that tc/HDL ratios become unimportant because there isn't enough LDL to get arrested for posession.

The problem is, I've a good idea why my friend's cholesterol at least hinders athero development, but in the latter case, I'm not sure at all.

The scientist is looking at groups, but the doctor should be treating the individual. That's why I fired the bimbo nurse-practitioner I saw. She didn't see me as a patient, she was treating by wrote formula: "this is what I do."

This is why I see little or no contradiction between your position and Arizona's. You're looking at, "what number will make us all bulletproof", and he's saying, "what number do _I_ need to be bulletproof" ...and given the complexity of blood chemistry they can easily be different numbers.

Now I fit better into the macro group, because I don't have a normal blood chemistry to consider. I've got to try and use diet, exercise and medication to make my own normal level, and LDL reduction is almost the only game in town. ...so deal me in.
mark





All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:05 AM.





© 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!