Cholesterol high despite healthy diet - what now??

I have high cholesterol but think I was given a high dose and when I had problems was not offered a lower dose, this was years ago so might have another try. I agree with just getting on with taking whatever but a word of caution I take calcium and just didn't feel right, was found to have far too much in the blood so glad I didn't just keep going with that. I try and practice healthy eating but it is Easter school holidays and GD has a project making chocolate biscuits - what am I supposed to do!

I sympathise luluaugust. DD went to a posh event at the weekend and brought home several mini packs of biscuits. I have just scoffed three custard creams and a Viennese finger. 300 cals in one shot! Sigh. (and it's made me feel so sleepy)

What can you do?

This thread reminds me of a(silly) joke I heard yesterday:
A 60yr old man went to his doctor and said, "Doctor, I want to live for another 20 years"
The doctor aked
Do you drink alcohol? No
Do you smoke? No
Do you enjoy fried food? No.
Do you look at other women? No
do you eat a lot of salt, and sugar? No.
Then why do you want to live another 20 years?

Do read the book if you wish- but keep an open mind.

The idea that statins should be given to all and sundry above the age of 60 is plain daft. But for some people, where high cholesterol goes hand in hand with other issues, and family history, they can and do save lives. Have to be monitored, liver function, etc, - but most people take them without any side effects.

A friend of mine, slim, eating a very healthy diet, died of a massive stroke. He had refused to take statins because of what he had read on the internet, despite familial history that pointed to heart and stroke problems associated with high bad cholesterol and low good cholesterol.

His wife then wanted to sue the GP for not insisting he took statins! They are life savers for some people. Get advice from specialists, not the internet.

This is very relevant to me at the moment. I have a blood cancer (polycythemia rubra Vera) and take an oral chemo tablet plus aspirin for that. I also have low thyroid function, asthma and all sorts of b....y things. I suddenly went dizzy a fortnight ago and was taken to A and E where they eventually diagnosed labrynthitis. In the course of the endless tests, the CT scan disclosed scar tissue in my brain from an old stroke, probably due to polycythemia pre diagnosis and treatment. The consultant insisted I take statins which I’ve resisted for years (my old gp confessed he agreed with me and his cholesterol was higher than mine!) to stop me having another stroke. Terrifying! I’m only on 10 mg and we’ll have to see what happens. I was put off because I take so many tablets already but mainly because of the scare stories about statins. Only been 12 days but I’m nervous in case I get any of the side effects.

Rowantree 5.9 overall isn’t necessarily bad. The important thing is the ratio between HDL (good) and LDL (bad).
So you need to know what that is.

I agree with Antonia, read Dr Malcolm Kendrick.
People are beginning to realise that fats aren’t necessarily bad for you.
Even Michael Mosley is advocating full-fat milk.

Nonnie wrote

“Rowan I think we often forget that as we get older we need to eat less than we used to.” Very true.

gonegirl a 40g portion of oats contains 0.5g saturated fat, 1g polyunsaturated fat and 1g monounsaturated fat, 5g protein and 4g fibre, according to my box of Quaker Oats.
So overall a very good component of anyone’s diet.

Yes, I'm sure you're right janea (And I was waiting for someone to come and tell me that ) But if eating oats daily can reduce cholesterol why did they invent statins?

(Rhetorical question only pleeease)

Well I’ll answer it anyway
a) you have to eat massive amounts of porridge to have a significant effect in cholesterol levels
b) Back in the 70’s someone linked high blood cholesterol with cardiovascular disease. Big opportunity for Big Pharma. The fact that that theory has now been challenged doesn’t stop them peddling their wares.
I should add that the controversy about statins, as far as I know, is about their use as a primary preventive measure, ie in people who haven’t any history of CVD. It’s different for people who have had a stroke, heart attack etc or who have hereditary high cholesterol.

Yeah, I thought you would. (Answer it)

And !

back at you gonegirl

I have a very jaundiced view of the benefits of taking statins for so-called "high" levels of cholesterol, (an arbitrary figure set by NICE).
When I was 60 (12 years ago), my then GP told me my level was higher than it should be and prescribed simvastatin. Within a week, I felt ill, and my muscles ached badly, so I stopped taking them. I did a bit of research on statins, and came to the conclusion that the benefits were infinitesimally small for an otherwise healthy person.
Unless you have already had a cardiac event, or are at risk of one, I don't think they do much good. It is a very divisive subject in the medical world, with some very strong views both for and against. I am very much in the latter camp.
One view from an admittedly American doctor here: articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/04/20/cholesterol-myths.aspx
And there are other articles written by a leading cardiologist Aseem Malhotra who also has firm views on the subject.
As always, do your own research, and make your own choice.

Back in the 1940s Alexander Fleming developed the first antibiotic, pennicillin. It was the miracle drug, cheap to produce and with all the other antibiotics developed since, the magic bullet to deal with all infections. Everyone jumped on the bandwagon: hand it out like sweeties, whether it was really needed or not, just in case. What harm could it do?

Now, in 21st century, the birds are coming home to roost, infective bacteria have become immune to antibiotics, some illnesses have developed immunities to every antibiotic ever developed. People are dying again from what had become preventable diseases. Doctors are cutting right back on prescribing antibiotics and researchers are desperately looking for alternatives.

Now we have statins. The answer to everything, cheap to produce, give them to everyone from birth so they never have high cholesterol and are protected from strokes and heart disease.

You can see where this is leading. I am just refusing to jump on this bandwagon, until such time as I am convinced that it really is the therapeutic drug I need. I haven't reached that stage yet.

give them to everyone from birth so they never have high cholesterol

Has someone actually suggested that Monica or did you make that bit up?

Excellent post jane - each case is different- and the internet it not the place to make the decision. Depends on your own health issues and risk, past history and familial history.

Lucky, you certainly have so much on your plate at the moment. Try not to worry about the side effects- as for most people, there are none. I am one of those who will get all the side effects if I read the notice - best not to think about it and see. x

jane that was a bit of an exageration to make a point. But it has been suggested that everyone over 40 should take them.

It is just so like what has happened with antibiotics, but more so, that underpins my unease.

Monica
When we’re considering mass medication, I think it comes down to cost(risk of side effects as well as financial costs)/benefit, both to the individual and to society.
Despite the activity of the anti-vaxxers, I suspect most of us had our children vaccinated, and most of our grandchildren have been vaccinated too. The costs of not vaccinating are becoming more and more apparent.

With statins, it’s far less clear cut, especially if as you say some are advocating everyone over 40 should take them.
The costs are not only the costs of treating any conditions that might result from statin use, but the costs of yearly testing to ensure liver function isn’t being compromised, compared to the costs of treating CVD that might have been prevented.......who knows.

From what I have read, 167 people have to take statins for 5 years to prevent one cardiac event.(The number needed to treat)

People really have to decide for themselves, and hope they are getting unbiased advice from their own GP.

Please take a look at this advice

www.heartuk.org.uk/healthy-living/cholesterol-lowering-foods

Jane my concern goes wider than that. Antibiotics were seen as the universal panacea and prescriptions for them were written for almost anything from an ingrowing toenail to brain cancer.

Now we are seeing the other side of this mass unthought through medication with infections that are resistant to antibiotics. I am concerned that 20 years from now we are going to find that this gadarene rush to hand statins out like sweeties, will be seen to have an as yet unknown deleterious affect on our health in the way we now realise over prescription of antibiotics has.

Vaccinations are different. The first vaccination for small pox was introduced over 200 years ago and they have had a gradual introduction to cover more and more different diseases since then. Their gradual introduction over this long period means that there has been plenty of time to see whether there are any population wide adverse affects in the long term and we know that there are not.

Pennicillin was in wide use from the late 1940s. It took 60 years to realise how dangerous was the wide spread use of these drugs in making bacteria immune to their effects. Statins have only been widely available since about 1990, barely 30 years ago.

Monica I do agree with you that the long term effects of statin use aren't known.

As far as antibiotics are concerned, it did take a long time before it became apparent that overuse led to resistant strains of bacteria.
But the public need to be aware as well as doctors - people still sometimes put pressure on their GP to prescribe inappropriately.

chatty that is a very helpful link and good news for those with high cholesterol but it should be read with caution too because the OP is concerned about weight and some of those things are quite high in calories.

Monica 'jane that was a bit of an exageration to make a point.grin But it has been suggested that everyone over 40 should take them.'

and I agree that this is ridiculous, and all the doctors I know agree it is ridiculous. But the other extreme is also dangerous - every case is different. There are people for whom, due to other conditions, due to personal and familial history, they can be extremely useful and life savers. In a very different way- but yes, like antibiotics.

Antonia
I've said before on these cholesterol threads that statins are the biggest con that was ever perpetrated by a drugs company.
Repeating myself again here. When you have sat in the surgery of a cardiovascular surgeon with your friend (she was the patient) and he said: "keep off them" you know that something is amiss.