Cholesterol

Lavinia · 28-02-2016 11:00pm #1

Hi everyone,

I have had a higher than normal cholesterol all my life, while all other blood results were totally fine so doctors were confused and could not find the reason for it. I changed diets and all, and would get it at best to around 6 but never went under 5.

I do not eat meat or fat, drink low fat milk randomly, have a sweet tooth but cut on cakes and alike, and am not obese person, like every woman I presume I think I could have few kilos less but that's it.

Also do exercise normally, not a huge fan but do it anyway.

So, I wonder is there anyone with a similar story that would be able to give me some advice on it - how to get this under control. I recently have been on some medication that flew my cholesterol over the moon (as above 8) so it got me really worried. My GP advised last week to start with medication and I know it is a decision for life so would be reluctant to start it just yet (if ever).

I do not drink but I have heard that "1 glass of wine" can help lower it. I believe that is the only thing left that I didn't try so wonder is it true, and does it really work.

Thanks to everyone in advance, even I was probably not clear as what my question(s) is (are).

get a room · 28-02-2016 11:11pm

Im predisposed to high cholesterol. Normally 7.9.
Meds on last bloods had it down to 6. Cant get it lower, as Johnny Logans Doctor once said "whats another tablet".

Lavinia · 28-02-2016 11:35pm

Hi get a room, thank you for your reply.

Do you have any tips as how you keep your ch. at bay or is it purely with medication?
Thanks!

get a room · 29-02-2016 11:29am

Its funny, when I first found out I gave up alcohol, hmmmmmmmm - coffee cream slices, chips from the chipper, wasent smoking, eat fish on average 3 times a week etc etc.

I have to get the bloods checked for PSA every six months, so when I went back to gp, got the cholesterol checked again. It was still 7. It eventually jumped to 7.9. I was put on tablets. I said sod it, went bought a cream slice and had a latte. I even went back on the Mcaris chips- salt and vineger hmmmmm, luvly!!! .

The tablets brought it down to 6, In three months I will be getting it checked again. I should point out, Im 50, and had a a couple of stents put in a few weeks ago.

joeprivate · 01-03-2016 7:40am

get a room wrote: »

Its funny, when I first found out I gave up alcohol, hmmmmmmmm - coffee cream slices, chips from the chipper, wasent smoking, eat fish on average 3 times a week etc etc.

I have to get the bloods checked for PSA every six months, so when I went back to gp, got the cholesterol checked again. It was still 7. It eventually jumped to 7.9. I was put on tablets. I said sod it, went bought a cream slice and had a latte. I even went back on the Mcaris chips- salt and vineger hmmmmm, luvly!!! .

The tablets brought it down to 6, In three months I will be getting it checked again. I should point out, Im 50, and had a a couple of stents put in a few weeks ago.

The treatment for referred to Stents , PSA and Statins are not very effective do some research on the topic a starting point is the links below .

These data examine the effect of statins for people who have known heart disease or a history of stroke. The effectiveness of the statins is fairly consistent across studies in this group—they lower cholesterol in most people who took them. A few people will also avoid a heart attack or stroke by virtue of this change. After 5 years of daily statin therapy study subjects achieved a 1.2% lower chance of death, a 2.6% lower chance of heart attack, and a 0.8% lower chance of stroke. As a public health measure, this suggests that statins may have an identifiable effect, because while the chances of any one individual being affected are small (19 out of 20 people who took the drugs for five years saw no effect), when one million people take them roughly 45,000 people saw some benefit, while another 6,000 may see a harm.but the studies foe NNT number needed to treat fo statins Statins Given for 5 Years for Heart Disease Prevention (With Known Heart Disease) show that 1 in 83 were helped (life saved)
1 in 39 were helped (preventing non-fatal heart attack)
1 in 125 were helped (preventing stroke)
http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-with-known-heart-disease/

Stents read the link to fully understand the results
Coronary Stenting for Non-Acute Coronary Disease Compared to Medical Therapy
None were helped (life saved, heart attack prevented, symptoms reduced)
1 in 50 were harmed (complications such as bleeding, stroke, kidney damage)
http://www.thennt.com/nnt/coronary-stenting-for-non-acute-coronary-disease-compared-to-medical-therapy/

PSA test beware of getting it read the link to fully understand the
Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) Test to Screen for Prostate Cancer
None were helped (preventing death from any cause, preventing death from prostate cancer)
1 in 5 were harmed (undergoing a prostate biopsy for a false-positive test)
Table 1. Results from the systematic review

Absolute mortality rate PSA group: 19.8%
Absolute mortality rate control group: 20%
Prostate cancer mortality PSA group: 0.7%
Prostate cancer mortality control group: 0.8%
Prostate cancer diagnosis rate PSA group: 6.4%
Prostate cancer diagnosis rate control group: 4.4%
Adverse medical events (infection, bleeding) due to biopsy PSA group: 0.7%*
Biopsy for false positive PSA in PSA group: 20%
*only one of the 5 trials reported adverse events. Other sources list adverse events from biopsy as high as 4.1%
http://www.thennt.com/nnt/psa-test-to-screen-for-prostate-cancer/

Lavinia · 01-03-2016 2:29pm

Thank you both.

Hi Joe, thank you for that, I took a quick look at those researches and it seems that results are suggesting that they are effective in very small percentage while are harmful as well, e.g. risk of developing other diseases, is that correct?

I have to admit that c. level above 8 (8.3) got me really scared so any advice helps. I am going this Friday for re-test so hope it will show some different result but I feel that something is wrong.

Kurtosis · 01-03-2016 4:35pm

What the NNT website data above doesn't take into account is the baseline risk of a cardiovascular event. In people who are at a higher risk of cardiovascular event (i.e. older people, high blood pressure, smokers, previous heart attack), statins and other preventative drugs are more effective. NICE have a useful decision aid on their website here .

It's really good to be informed on what the actual beneficial and harmful effects of your medicines are, but when making a choice to take or not take something it is important to discuss this with your doctor.

joeprivate · 02-03-2016 2:04am

penguin88 wrote: »

What the NNT website data above doesn't take into account is the baseline risk of a cardiovascular event. In people who are at a higher risk of cardiovascular event (i.e. older people, high blood pressure, smokers, previous heart attack), statins and other preventative drugs are more effective. NICE have a useful decision aid on their website here .

It's really good to be informed on what the actual beneficial and harmful effects of your medicines are, but when making a choice to take or not take something it is important to discuss this with your doctor.

The link you sent is useful but it does not contradict the data from the NNT site basically 1 in 83 were helped (life saved) over 5 years and the site you linked to gives the data over 10 years for different risks it lumps lives saved in with non fatal heart attacks and non fatal strokes so the data is not dissimilar but I think the nnt site also looks at more studies over five years the nnt is much higher than for 10 years it also looks at the harms over a 1 or 2 year period rather that the 10 year period it looks at to demonstrate a good NNT and over a 1 or 2 year period for NNH so it as if they want to give you a positive spin on the data

They do give advice on changing your diet this advice is a step in the right direction but is different from the only 2 peer reviewed studies that I know of that demonstrate a reversal of heart disease. Look at these videos

The Last Heart Attack - CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta- Full Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zQAOQRpG8k

Yourself Heart Attack Proof - Caldwell Esselstyn MD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs0

Dean Ornish, M.D. - Transform 2010 - Mayo Clinic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTFtIZEN5vw

get a room · 02-03-2016 5:26am

Too late for me.

In 2013 my father got prostate cancer, psa was high. He would not tell anyone and met his brother who would not tell anyone in oncology in Beaumont.
My PSA was normal and was diagnosed with prostatis, bph, and cancer all within a couple of months.

After a heart attack before christmas, ecg normal - relatively-, stress tests, ct scan, x rays and angiogram, i got the stents.

Kurtosis · 02-03-2016 11:18am

joeprivate wrote: »

The link you sent is useful but it does not contradict the data from the NNT site basically 1 in 83 were helped (life saved) over 5 years and the site you linked to gives the data over 10 years for different risks it lumps lives saved in with non fatal heart attacks and non fatal strokes so the data is not dissimilar but I think the nnt site also looks at more studies over five years the nnt is much higher than for 10 years it also looks at the harms over a 1 or 2 year period rather that the 10 year period it looks at to demonstrate a good NNT and over a 1 or 2 year period for NNH so it as if they want to give you a positive spin on the data

They do give advice on changing your diet this advice is a step in the right direction but is different from the only 2 peer reviewed studies that I know of that demonstrate a reversal of heart disease. Look at these videos

The Last Heart Attack - CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta- Full Documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zQAOQRpG8k

Yourself Heart Attack Proof - Caldwell Esselstyn MD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs0

Dean Ornish, M.D. - Transform 2010 - Mayo Clinic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTFtIZEN5vw

I didn't mean to suggest any contradiction, just that the NNT is not a fixed number for a treatment, it varies depending on the baseline risk. In people with a low risk of heart attack, the NNT for statins is high, whereas for people at high risk the NNT is much lower. That's why it's important for people considering taking statins to be aware of how effective it is in patients like them, not on average.

Regarding the NNH, the data used seems to be from a study of a high-dose statin (atorvastatin 80mg) with 5 year follow up (references for the decision aid here).

joeprivate · 02-03-2016 12:21pm

penguin88 wrote: »

I didn't mean to suggest any contradiction, just that the NNT is not a fixed number for a treatment, it varies depending on the baseline risk. In people with a low risk of heart attack, the NNT for statins is high, whereas for people at high risk the NNT is much lower. That's why it's important for people considering taking statins to be aware of how effective it is in patients like them, not on average.

Regarding the NNH, the data used seems to be from a study of a high-dose statin (atorvastatin 80mg) with 5 year follow up (references for the decision aid here).

Here is a image from the link you provided
What it is saying that if 100 people take statins for 10 years between 97 to 89 of the people taking them will get no benefit from taking the statins and from other data more people will have negative side effects. In my view a change in diet can lead to a better outcome than taking statins.

draiochtanois · 02-03-2016 12:29pm

This post has been deleted.

Lavinia · 02-03-2016 2:03pm

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hi thanks for the link however some stories from there made me wonder if this is true, such as:

"Another success story is that of Andrew from Dublin. His cholesterol was 8.8 mmol/l. He was also gaining weight, feeling tired and stressed, and not sleeping well. He was put on statins and, six months later, it was 8.7. The lack of response, plus side-effects, led him to stop. Andrew attended one of my 100% health workshops, changed his diet and started taking supplements including high dose niacin, vitamin C and omega 3. Three weeks later, he had lost 10 pounds, his energy levels were great, he no longer felt stressed and he was sleeping much better. And his cholesterol level had dropped to a healthy 4.9. "

I mean in three weeks? Wish if this would be possible but ..

Other than that yes I will try for 2 months to change my diet and lose few kilograms so will retest again, even I am visiting my doctor next week as she wants to see if the first blood results were "false" due to something I eat the day before.

I got supplements from Amazon two days ago and started taking them, also all vit&min 1 daily tablets for a while now. I plan to try to cut on sweets too because I read some new researches showed there is a link between the sugar and cholesterol more than between fat and cholesterol.

Who to trust?.. I will try both and hope for the best before I take medication.

I am also cutting on dairy and started with almond milk, and started eating more salads. I do cycle couple of times a week but perhaps some yoga or pilates could be an option for me to consider, since I do not have a very strong will in that regard maybe joining a class..

I am scared even my triglycerides and all other results are totally fine, including hormones. I do have a history of heart attacks and strokes in the family.

Not sure what else I could do. I note that I tend to believe more to the "real stories" from people here than what I read online on other sites..

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 02-03-2016 3:27pm

I always had cholesterol readings over 6.5. My doctor didn't want to start me on lifelong tablets so I started walking more, use benecol spread and Avonmore Heart Active milk. I don't like any of the yoghurt type drinks. Within 6 months my reading was 5.2 and after a year 4.8. So a small lifestyle change can sometomes do the trick. And I'm still a demon for my daily biscuits.

Lavinia · 02-03-2016 4:00pm

Lucille Crashing Backhand wrote: »

I always had cholesterol readings over 6.5. My doctor didn't want to start me on lifelong tablets so I started walking more, use benecol spread and Avonmore Heart Active milk. I don't like any of the yoghurt type drinks. Within 6 months my reading was 5.2 and after a year 4.8. So a small lifestyle change can sometomes do the trick. And I'm still a demon for my daily biscuits.

That is great, I am really glad to hear a success story : ) and glad for you.

Walking!
I love fast walking and was walking up to a year ago at least once a day for min 5 kilometers or sometimes more, but due to obligations it fell out of my daily schedule.

That benecol spread - you think of a butter spread? It always looked to me as double-faced since the butter makes ch. higher, while stanol lowers it, so I've mixed feelings about it?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 02-03-2016 4:04pm

Lavinia wrote: »

That is great, I am really glad to hear a success story : ) and glad for you.

Walking!
I love fast walking and was walking up to a year ago at least once a day for min 5 kilometers or sometimes more, but due to obligations it fell out of my daily schedule.

That benecol spread - you think of a butter spread? It always looked to me as double-faced since the butter makes ch. higher, while stanol lowers it, so I've mixed feelings about it?

There's a Benecol Lite with much less fat. I was a real butter lover and fussy about spreads but this is fine. The Heart Active milk is excellent too, as I drink a litre of milk a day.

Lavinia · 02-03-2016 4:14pm

Lucille Crashing Backhand wrote: »

There's a Benecol Lite with much less fat. I was a real butter lover and fussy about spreads but this is fine. The Heart Active milk is excellent too, as I drink a litre of milk a day.

Hm, I can try that if there is some with zero fat. Will have to take a look.
This almond milk is not bad on taste either, I tried soya milk but did not like it.

I see that oats and beans are effective to lower cholesterol as well, so will get it to incorporate into my "new" diet.

It is going to be a bit stressful cause I am not very good in dieting... and "having" to omit something often makes me just wanting it more

(e.g. for one Easter lent I said I will not drink Coke. I do not even like Coke and really have it rarely, perhaps in the cinema or something. But all I could think of next few weeks is a glass of Coke with ice - it was hard! :pac:)

caviardreams · 02-03-2016 9:22pm

Don't worry about the fat in butter etc. there's no significant link between eating fat and cholesterol. I would be far more concerned about sugar:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cholesterol-u-turn-as-research-shows-fatty-foods-might-not-be-bad-for-us-after-all-10277837.html

tringle · 03-03-2016 12:52pm

I have high cholesterol, it was between 6 and 7 for about two years and nothing I did would lower it. Eventually I gave in and took the statins, it went down to about 4.5. We have a family history of cholesterol, low thyroid, diabetes 2 and death from heart attack so I recently went to a dietician for some advice. She said that only 10% of our cholesterol comes form dietary sources, some people are just more predisposed to it than others. I have low thyroid and the chemist said that and cholesterol are related. That you try to control the thyroid first as this will help the cholesterol.

Of course I plan on losing lots of weight but have now realised that preventing it getting any higher is enough of a challenge for me.
I'm due another blood test in about 6 weeks (I now get tests every year for cholesterol, thyroid, diabetes, liver and menopause...my choice) and want to discuss not taking the statins and seeing the difference in 6 months.

I have discovered that cholesterol and statins are one of the most controversial medical issues lately.

joeprivate · 03-03-2016 4:39pm

tringle wrote: »

I have high cholesterol, it was between 6 and 7 for about two years and nothing I did would lower it. Eventually I gave in and took the statins, it went down to about 4.5. We have a family history of cholesterol,

I have discovered that cholesterol and statins are one of the most controversial medical issues lately.

The reasons it is is controversial is that doctors can rightly claim that taking statins can cut the risk of heart attacks by say 40% but on the other hand if 100 people take statins for 10 years between 89% to 97% of the people taking them will get no benefit from taking the statins .Strangely both of these statements can be

Its called NNT and there is a NNT for every drug for example the NNT for Viagra is 1.7 what this means is if 17 men take the drug 10 men will get an erection, sufficiently rigid for penetration, followed by successful intercourse.

In my view a change in diet can lead to a better outcome than taking statins for heart attacks and it also helps for erectile dysfunction.

Kurtosis · 03-03-2016 6:27pm

joeprivate wrote: »

The reasons it is is controversial is that doctors can rightly claim that taking statins can cut the risk of heart attacks by say 40% but on the other hand if 100 people take statins for 10 years between 89% to 97% of the people taking them will get no benefit from taking the statins .Strangely both of these statements can be

Its called NNT and there is a NNT for every drug for example the NNT for Viagra is 1.7 what this means is if 17 men take the drug 10 men will get an erection, sufficiently rigid for penetration, followed by successful intercourse.

In my view a change in diet can lead to a better outcome than taking statins for heart attacks and it also helps for erectile dysfunction.

Again, just to point out, there isn't a single NNT for each drug, one component is the effectiveness of the drug, the other is the baseline risk of the disease etc. which can vary between different types of people. Hence why the NNT is lower for people with a higher baseline risk.

Also FYI regarding statins, the relevant percentages are actually 82% to 97% (given that 18 events are prevented in males 45-54 year old men with a 40% 10 year CV risk in this resource linked earlier)

joeprivate · 03-03-2016 6:51pm

penguin88 wrote: »

Again, just to point out, there isn't a single NNT for each drug, one component is the effectiveness of the drug, the other is the baseline risk of the disease etc. which can vary between different types of people. Hence why the NNT is lower for people with a higher baseline risk.

Also FYI regarding statins, the relevant percentages are actually 82% to 97% (given that 18 events are prevented in males 45-54 year old men with a 40% 10 year CV risk in this resource linked earlier)

Thanks for pointing out the typo error but it really does not change my point
You prove my point the people at the highest possible risk get almost no benefit and most people taking statins are not aware of true risks and benefits of the drug.
If 1000 men take the drug every day as prescribed for 10 years or 3650 days between 820 and 970 men will get no benefit from taking the drug in fact many of them will have harm done to them and if this is the best treatment available then so be it ,we will have to wait on a better drug to be made.But the majority of men taking the drug are not been told that the odds that the drug will do them any good is stacked against them and if they were to change there diet to that of the people in the blue zones they could reverse their heart disease as proven by peer reviewed studies all I ask is that the patents and people on boards be informed on how useless these drugs are at this point in time and that there is mounting evidence that a radical change in diet to a plant based died has better outcomes for those that make the change. Just inform the people of the choices and let them make an informed decision.
One other point is that these NNT numbers are biased mostly on published drug company trials which in the past have been proven to be biased in there favor and they tend not to publish the trials that don't show the results they want it is business, big business .The whole system stinks.

Kurtosis · 03-03-2016 6:57pm

joeprivate wrote: »

Thanks for pointing out the typo error but it really does not change my point
You prove my point the people at the highest possible risk get almost no benefit and most people taking statins are not aware of true risks and benefits of the drug.
If 1000 men take the drug every day as prescribed for 10 years or 3650 days between 820 and 970 men will get no benefit from taking the drug in fact many of them will have harm done to them and if this is the best treatment available then so be it ,we will have to wait on a better drug to be made.But the majority of men taking the drug are not been told that the odds that the drug will do them any good is stacked against them and if they were to change there diet to that of the people in the blue zones they could reverse their heart disease as proven by peer reviewed studies all I ask is that the patents and people on boards be informed on how useless these drugs are at this point in time and that there is mounting evidence that a radical change in diet to a plant based died has better outcomes for those that make the change. Just inform the people of the choices and let them make an informed decision.
One other point is that these NNT numbers are biased mostly on published drug company trials which in the past have been proven to be biased in there favor and they tend not to publish the trials that don't show the results they want it is business, big business .The whole system stinks.

No arguments here that there are plenty of medications out there with limited effectiveness.

Having said that, if you have peer-reviewed evidence from large trials that dietary changes provide better outcomes than conventional treatment with statins, I would be interested in reading them.

joeprivate · 04-03-2016 1:28am

penguin88 wrote: »

No arguments here that there are plenty of medications out there with limited effectiveness.

Having said that, if you have peer-reviewed evidence from large trials that dietary changes provide better outcomes than conventional treatment with statins, I would be interested in reading them.

There are not many large studies unlike the pharma industry the vegetable industry in ireland does not have deep pockets to fund large studies so dont be surprised that there is not many studies

Here one for starters can you review it and let me know what you think
http://dresselstyn.com/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf

th

tringle · 04-03-2016 9:22am

I agree that diet and lifestyle changes should be the first option, this is why I went to a dietician, to see what changes I should make.
I don't eat meat, I do eat chicken about twice a week.
I don't eat fish, I should but I just cant stomach it.
I don't drink milk, eat yogurt or cheese, they make me mucousy and gag.
I have two scrambled eggs on Sunday with toast and butter, this seems to be the only source of animal fats I have.
The dietician actually recommended I up my intake of dairy.

Lavinia · 04-03-2016 1:30pm

I read somewhere that ch. from body is 80 and from food 20 percent. (or 85, 15, cant remember exactly).
But - that the cholesterol that body produces (liver) is based on what we eat. So I concluded that it is very important to what we eat =>> e.g. diet.

I started making changes and will see in few months if that helped. If it did not I will consider medication but will first try on my own.
At this point I believe that both fat and sugar may cause spikes in cholesterol so will be weary of both, but not cut any completely but have it moderately to low in what I eat, and include all this food that is recommended that lowers cholesterol.
I am vegetarian btw since I was 16 so I hope it will not be too hard for me, also started taking omega-3 supplements and will see how it goes..

I wish if science can help me better here but the information is contradicting ..

joeprivate · 04-03-2016 1:54pm

tringle wrote: »

The dietician actually recommended I up my intake of dairy.

This does not surprise me they are in bed with the dairy industry

A quick google of dietitians in Ireland revealed some interesting quotes all from the one document

Who do we work with?

Over the last number of years we have collaborated with a wide range of
partners – Abbott Nutrition, Nutricia Medical, National Dairy Council, Safefood,
Fresenius-Kabi and Danone Nutricia Early Life Nutrition to name a few – and
are experienced in developing and implementing market leading, creative and
often complex initiatives. We pride ourselves on understanding business and
ensuring outcomes and expectations are not only met but also exceeded.
We have a strong footprint in a number of areas including the Food Sector,
Agri Business and 3rd Sector providers such as NGOs, advocacy groups and
specialist medical solution organisations.
We are keen to further develop our network of partners and we are open for
business.

What can we offer your organisation?
We offer a range of partner packages and bespoke consultative services all of
which are outlined below.
Platinum Partner€50,000-100,000
The IxxI will have one Platinum Partner per year and will work with
you to develop a bespoke package that meets your business needs
and our objectives. It might appeal to an organisation, association,
government body or industry partner who wants to invest in
research, CSR and/or a major consumer campaign.

What do our partners say about us? “Working in partnership with the IxxI opens new and innovative opportunities for communicating with dietitians in Ireland. This partnership facilitates the effective delivery of information to dietitians via a collaborative and flexible approach, thereby ensuring the goals and needs of both dietitians and partners are realised.” Dr Catherine Logan, National Dairy Council, November 2014

InTheTrees · 04-03-2016 2:12pm

joeprivate wrote: »

In my view a change in diet can lead to a better outcome than taking statins for heart attacks and it also helps for erectile dysfunction.

Agreed.

I cant imagine anything worse that committing myself to long term dependence on a medication with its attendant side effects.

My Cholesterol was through the roof about five years ago and my GP put me on a course of VitaminB (Niacin) It took around two years to get my numbers down but it worked.

Lavinia · 12-05-2016 6:55pm

Lavinia wrote: »

I started making changes and will see in few months if that helped.

So just as an update, to say that now, after 2.5 months of me really taking care of what I eat and when and how, my cholesterol got to 7.1 (from 8.6 in early March (not 8.3 as I initially recalled)).

My doctor called me today and said she would - due to my family history (eg my father had a stroke at the age of 45 etc) - put me on some mild medication and to come on Tuesday to see her.

I plan to take prescriptions and then decide. She advised that nowadays there are some meds you do not have to take for all your life.

I do not know anything about it so will see. I am glad it lowered a bit, and I do feel better btw, but would love to have it sorted...

Lavinia · 14-05-2016 10:56am

Does anyone know that - if I continue with this diet change, it would mean that the cholesterol level would continue to drop in next e.g. 2.5 months again?

Or this means that - this kind of diet gives me as much as lowered cholesterol as it possibly could.

Thanks a lot.

InTheTrees · 14-05-2016 2:31pm

Lavinia wrote: »

Does anyone know that - if I continue with this diet change, it would mean that the cholesterol level would continue to drop in next e.g. 2.5 months again?

Or this means that - this kind of diet gives me as much as lowered cholesterol as it possibly could.

Thanks a lot.

Yes. I am 99% certain it continues to lower.

My gf had really high cholesterol and she went full vegan (no animal products of any kind), six months later it was down to normal levels. She was doing it with her doctors oversight as well.

Which is why it was surprising your doc still wants to put you on drugs.

Cholesterol

Comments