 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / October 2007cholesterol
Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the cholesterol. How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me medication? Help appreciated please. > Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I was told > to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the cholesterol. > > How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me medication? > > Help appreciated please. Generally, low-carb reduces LDL (bad cholesterol) and triglycerides. It doesn't do such a good job of raising HDL, exercise is better for raising HDL than diet is. Ideal numbers are LDL and triglycerides under 60 and HDL over 60, but usually doctors don't shoot for that strict. The drug they generally want to put you on if your LDL is high is a statin. Statins are somewhat controversial for a number of reasons; some of the side effects can be pretty bad. If you do go on one, it'd be a good thing if you took 100mg Coenzyme Q10 every day to reduce the possibility of statin side effects. Better than the statins are the drugs that work in the gut; Zetia and Werchol. These are much safer, but relatively newer so there's no generics yet and they're more expensive. Better still is something like SloNiacin, which not only lowers LDL very effectively, but raises HDL as well. The problem is people don't tolerate it as well because of the flushing effect, so you need to start with a low dose and increase the dose gradually every 4 weeks or so, take it with an aspirin, and drink a couple glasses of water afterwards. After you get up to a full dose (around 1000-1500 mg/day), it can take a year to see the full effects. They kind of prescribe statins indiscriminately. I was put on one when I was sent home from the hospital after my heart attack. Later, I asked to be switched to Zetia because I was worried about the statin. Later still, I got my hospital records and saw my LDL was under 60 before I was discharged, so there was no need for either. But my HDL was very low, so I switched to SloNiacin. I also take fish oil and vitamin D3 for heart health. I tried to switch to cod liver oil to reduce the number of pills I have to take, but it turns out the stuff makes me retch, so I'm sticking to the pills. If you want to learn a WHOLE lot about this stuff, check out this cardiologist's blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/  Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I >> was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > If you want to learn a WHOLE lot about this stuff, check out this > cardiologist's blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/ Many thanks for this. I am in UK so unsure about those meds you talked about. I will certainly read up on it so that when I see my Doc I can ask the right questions O > Generally, low-carb reduces LDL (bad cholesterol) and triglycerides. It > doesn't do such a good job of raising HDL, exercise is better for > raising HDL than diet is. Ideal numbers are LDL and triglycerides under > 60 and HDL over 60, but usually doctors don't shoot for that strict. Jackie, my experience, and quite a few studies demonstrate that low carb, at least in the first six months, raises LDL or leaves it the same, while also raising HDL. My own experience was a 100 pt. reduction in LDL, doubling of HDL from a decade long low of 34 to 70, and lowering of my TGLS by a lot within weeks of commencing lower carb. Susan >> Generally, low-carb reduces LDL (bad cholesterol) and triglycerides. >> It doesn't do such a good job of raising HDL, exercise is better for >> raising HDL than diet is. Ideal numbers are LDL and triglycerides >> under 60 and HDL over 60, but usually doctors don't shoot for that >> strict. > Jackie, my experience, and quite a few studies demonstrate that low > carb, at least in the first six months, raises LDL or leaves it the > same, while also raising HDL. That's what I got from Taubes and Eades: On low-carb, triglycerides go way down and the HDL/LDL ratio improves (these are the things that now matter), but LDL and total cholesterol may rise a little, especially in the first few months, and especially if you eat a lot of saturated fat. That's why saturated fat got a bad reputation in the first place -- all they were measuring back then was total cholesterol, and saturated fats made it higher. There's also research that shows that the density of your LDL (and VLDL) in particular has a strong correlation with disease, and a low-carb diet tends to make the LDL particles lighter and "fluffier," which is good. No one should let a doctor prescribe anything for cholesterol without reading Taubes's book first, at least the cholesterol section. What's $20 for a book, up against the price of a doctor visit, prescription drugs, and your life? Before you take a doctor's advice, understand the history of where that advice is coming from. Maybe you'll agree with the doctor, maybe you won't; but don't go in there clueless. SignatureAaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz > No one should let a doctor prescribe anything for cholesterol without > reading Taubes's book first, at least the cholesterol section. What's > $20 for a book, up against the price of a doctor visit, prescription > drugs, and your life? Before you take a doctor's advice, understand the > history of where that advice is coming from. Maybe you'll agree with > the doctor, maybe you won't; but don't go in there clueless. Exactly. >>> Generally, low-carb reduces LDL (bad cholesterol) and triglycerides. >>> It doesn't do such a good job of raising HDL, exercise is better for [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > the history of where that advice is coming from. Maybe you'll agree > with the doctor, maybe you won't; but don't go in there clueless. Indeed. Which was why I ran here first. I have seen a lot of posts about this kind of thing but never took a lot of notice. It didn't apply to me, did it? <sigh> I just want to add a scientific touch to this thread. Check out www.thincs.org for a research based discussion about the flaws of the common theories about cholesterol and disease. I hope that it will be of some value. > I just want to add a scientific touch to this thread. Check out > www.thincs.org for a research based discussion about the flaws of the > common theories about cholesterol and disease. I hope that it will be > of some value. Thank you Håkan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > in LDL, doubling of HDL from a decade long low of 34 to 70, and lowering > of my TGLS by a lot within weeks of commencing lower carb. Damn, how did you get your HDL up like that? Do you exercise a lot? Mine dropped from 34 to 24 while I was hospitalized. I'm pretty sure longer term, LDL drops. Otherwise, I have no "excuse" for mine being under 60 before I was on meds (and within a week of having a heart attack). I recall discussing this with my internist before I had my records and saying I'd heard under 60 was the ideal and he said that was nearly impossible, you'd have to take so much statin to ever get that low that you'd never be able to tolerate the side effects - and then it turned out mine was that low anyways. Though I have seen a lot of folks have elevated LDL for some period of time - it seems a common side effect initially. But it also seems to go away after a while. I'm pretty sure Ophelia has been here a while, so I assumed a long-term low-carb thing. Still, SloNiacin does lower LDL as well as raise HDL and is a heck of a lot cheaper than Zetia or Werchol. While I think niacin is a drug, not a vitmain, when taken at the doses that work for LDL and HDL improvement, it obviously beats the heck out of a statin. SloNiacin is the form Davis recommends as least likely to cause liver problems. Ophelia, another point... did you get your lipids done while fasting? Cause if not, your triglycerides could be high cause of that - it's supposed to be a fasting test. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > Damn, how did you get your HDL up like that? Do you exercise a lot? > Mine dropped from 34 to 24 while I was hospitalized. I just stopped eating starch and sugar and *two weeks later* that was my result. In the near decade since, it's gone no lower than 56, and mostly has stayed mid 60s. > I'm pretty sure longer term, LDL drops. Otherwise, I have no "excuse" > for mine being under 60 before I was on meds (and within a week of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ever get that low that you'd never be able to tolerate the side effects > - and then it turned out mine was that low anyways. I think longer term, LDL drops if you keep losing weight, but otherwise not necessarily. Mine crept up over the years after that result while I was adrenally suppressed by topical and inhaled steroids and then metformin. It's dropped once more since cutting those out, but because my adrenal hormones cycle, my LDL does, as my body tries to compensate for the lows. > Though I have seen a lot of folks have elevated LDL for some period of > time - it seems a common side effect initially. But it also seems to go > away after a while. I'm pretty sure Ophelia has been here a while, so I > assumed a long-term low-carb thing. I think for most folks, it'll go down as long as they're losing. For those with adrenal issues, all bets are off. :-/ > Still, SloNiacin does lower LDL as well as raise HDL and is a heck of a > lot cheaper than Zetia or Werchol. While I think niacin is a drug, not > a vitmain, when taken at the doses that work for LDL and HDL > improvement, it obviously beats the heck out of a statin. SloNiacin is > the form Davis recommends as least likely to cause liver problems. Slow or regular niacin made me very weak and shaky and raised my bg. Too bad, I loved the flush from the strong stuff and it really aided sleep. > Ophelia, another point... did you get your lipids done while fasting? > Cause if not, your triglycerides could be high cause of that - it's > supposed to be a fasting test. 12-14 hours fasting, ideally, and that means no coffee, too. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > 12-14 hours fasting, ideally, and that means no coffee, too. Ahh. I did have black coffee > Though I have seen a lot of folks have elevated LDL for some period of > time - it seems a common side effect initially. But it also seems to > go away after a while. I'm pretty sure Ophelia has been here a > while, so I assumed a long-term low-carb thing. It was! Then the last couple of years, as I explained I had surgery and infection. I was doing well until I had to go on the scale:( I have been struggling recently. I have been very stressed because we are moving down to England. My So is now working down there and I must give up my job, get the house sold and move down. I am getting used to the idea now but I hate leaving my work:) > Still, SloNiacin does lower LDL as well as raise HDL and is a heck of > a lot cheaper than Zetia or Werchol. While I think niacin is a drug, > not a vitmain, when taken at the doses that work for LDL and HDL > improvement, it obviously beats the heck out of a statin. SloNiacin > is the form Davis recommends as least likely to cause liver problems. > Ophelia, another point... did you get your lipids done while fasting? Yes it was. > Cause if not, your triglycerides could be high cause of that - it's > supposed to be a fasting test. Thank you! Here is something that may be of value to you out of Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories" on page 447... discussing the reluctance of some doctors to tolerate low carb eating....... "..... The same is true for the occasional elevation of cholesterol that will occur with fat loss -- a condition known as transient hypercholesterolemia -- and that is a consequence of the fact that we store cholesterol along with fat in our fat cells. When fatty acids are mobilized [released], the cholesterol is released as well, and thus serum levels of cholesterol can spike. The existing evidence suggests that this effect will vanish with successful weight loss, regardless of the saturated-gat content of the diet. Nonetheless, it is often cited as another reason to avoid carbohydrate-restricted diets and to withdraw a patient immediately from the diet should such a thing be observed, under the mistaken impression that this is a chronic effect of a relatively fat-rich diet." So, if you have recently restarted this low carb eating and the tests show a peak of cholesterol, it might be due to the effect above. On the other hand, if you have been low carb for a real long time, this can likely be ignored. >>Though I have seen a lot of folks have elevated LDL for some period of >>time - it seems a common side effect initially. But it also seems to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Thank you! > Here is something that may be of value to you out of Gary Taubes "Good > Calories, Bad Calories" on page 447... discussing the reluctance of [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > On the other hand, if you have been low carb for a real long time, > this can likely be ignored. Many thanks Jim!!! That has given me plenty to think about!! >>> Though I have seen a lot of folks have elevated LDL for some period >>> of time - it seems a common side effect initially. But it also [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >> >> Thank you! :: Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I :: was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the :: cholesterol. did you not ask for your numbers over the phone? If not, why? :: How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me :: medication? :: :: Help appreciated please. Just say no. In room for improvement in LC diet and exercise? >>> Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I >>> was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the >>> cholesterol. > > did you not ask for your numbers over the phone? If not, why? Because I know nothing about it and I didn't know I should:) >>> How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me >>> medication? >>> >>> Help appreciated please. > > Just say no. In room for improvement in LC diet and exercise? Please explain? :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Ophelia wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :: :: Because I know nothing about it and I didn't know I should:) Well, please find out and get a complete breakdown: LDL, VLDL, HDL, and Trigs. ::::: How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me ::::: medication? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :: :: Please explain? Well, if you've been sloppy with LC or not exercising, then your numbers may not be as good as they can be. Or, as others indicated, if you haven't been doing LC for that long, perhaps there is still come improvement to come. However, some doctors just put you on those drugs at the slightest elevation in your numbers. In the meantime, half the people dying of heart attacks have normal chol numbers. The question then is whether or not CHOL is even a meaningful indicator if risk. It's one topic of Taubes book, in fact. Why bother with drugs which can be potentially impactful on your life when CHOL is not even an important issue anyway? >>> Roger Zoul wrote: >>>> Ophelia wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well, please find out and get a complete breakdown: LDL, VLDL, HDL, > and Trigs. Ok. Please can you explain what they are? >>>>>> How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me >>>>>> medication? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, if you've been sloppy with LC or not exercising, then your > numbers may not be as good as they can be. I have not been exercising. In the last two years I have had both knees replaced. With the first one I was ill for quite a long time because I had a serious infection, and I was on IV antibiotics for 3 months Or, as others indicated, > if you haven't been doing LC for that long, perhaps there is still > come improvement to come. However, some doctors just put you on those > drugs at the slightest elevation in your numbers. I have heard of statins and I am afraid of them. In the meantime, > half the people dying of heart attacks have normal chol numbers. The > question then is whether or not CHOL is even a meaningful indicator > if risk. It's one topic of Taubes book, in fact. Why bother with > drugs which can be potentially impactful on your life when CHOL is > not even an important issue anyway? :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Ophelia wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: :: Ok. Please can you explain what they are? I guess they have the same names in the UK....Low density Lipoprotein, very low density lipoprotein, and high density lipoprotein, and triglycerides. These days, the claim is that is the ratios that are important....for example, Total/HDL...the smaller the better. (You want more of your total to come from HDL than from LDL, supposely). Here's a page: http://www.pro2services.com/Lectures/Fall/Lipids/a5lipids.htm :::::::: How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me :::::::: medication? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] :: because I had a serious infection, and I was on IV antibiotics for 3 :: months I see. Then diet is very, very important for you, O, unless you can find a way to exercise. :: Or, as others indicated, ::: if you haven't been doing LC for that long, perhaps there is still ::: come improvement to come. However, some doctors just put you on ::: those drugs at the slightest elevation in your numbers. :: :: I have heard of statins and I am afraid of them. Me too. :: In the meantime, ::: half the people dying of heart attacks have normal chol numbers. The ::: question then is whether or not CHOL is even a meaningful indicator ::: if risk. It's one topic of Taubes book, in fact. Why bother with ::: drugs which can be potentially impactful on your life when CHOL is ::: not even an important issue anyway? > These days, the claim is that is the ratios that are important....for > example, Total/HDL...the smaller the better. (You want more of your > total to come from HDL than from LDL, supposely). Here's a page: > > http://www.pro2services.com/Lectures/Fall/Lipids/a5lipids.htm Many thanks Roger > I have heard of statins and I am afraid of them. Just say no. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> I have heard of statins and I am afraid of them. > > Just say no. Very well! I will! > Well, if you've been sloppy with LC or not exercising, then your numbers may > not be as good as they can be. Or, as others indicated, if you haven't been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bother with drugs which can be potentially impactful on your life when CHOL > is not even an important issue anyway? I agree that cholesterol itself doesn't matter much. However, the lipoproteins that carry it around do seem to matter. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> Well, if you've been sloppy with LC or not exercising, then your numbers >> may not be as good as they can be. Or, as others indicated, if you [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I agree that cholesterol itself doesn't matter much. However, the > lipoproteins that carry it around do seem to matter. LDL has two components, the small dense particles and the large fluffy ones. The latter are good. LCers then to have more of those, driving LDL higher than otherwise. Of course, this crap is being made up as we type, so I tend not to put much stock in any of it, even though my HDL has been between 87 and 100+ (with lots of exercise). > Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I was told > to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the cholesterol. > > How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me medication? In the 1993 Atkins edition is a statement that after 6+ months, 80% see better numbers. In the 2001 Atkins edition is a statement that after 2+ months, a majority see better numbers. I see you've been posting 4 months. Maybe you're not to the 6 month point yet? Early on the numbers tend to go up. Depends on how long you've been low carbing and if you're in the 80% or in the 20%. >> Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I >> was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > how long you've been low carbing and if you're in the 80% or in the > 20%. Oh heck, I don't understand:( btw I have been up and down with the diet. <ashamed> I know this sound stupid and I almost certainly is, but I can't stick to it if I know the numbers on the scale. I was doing great (24lbs in two months). I was called to see the nurse at the asthma clinic. She made me go on the scale. I tried not to look but couldn't help myself. That is when I saw how much I had lost. I went off the diet big time:((((((((((((((( I am back on now but daren't look:( As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( O needing help! :: Doug Freyburger wrote: ::: "Ophelia" <O...@nix.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] :: :: btw I have been up and down with the diet. <ashamed> Don't be ashamed. It doesn't help. also, you yet don't know if there is anything to really be worried about. If fact, the worry itself may be more damaging than your numbers being high. :: I know this sound stupid and I almost certainly is, but I can't :: stick to it if I know the numbers on the scale. I was doing great :: (24lbs in two months). I was called to see the nurse at the asthma :: clinic. She made me go on the scale. A nurse can't make you get on the scale. If doing that really causes you problems, refuse to do so. I tried not to look but :: couldn't help myself. That is when I saw how much I had lost. I :: went off the diet big time:((((((((((((((( That's definitely something to work on! :) :: I am back on now but daren't look:( :: :: As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( So, there is a lot of room for you to improve your numbers, if you like. At the least, you won't have to doctor making you feel as though you're going to drop dead just because she doesn't like your number -- which for many is meaningless anywho. In a way, though, this is good news! Keep repeating to yourself, this is not a diet, this is the way I eat and I will eat this way for the rest of my life. | Oh heck, I don't understand:( | [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] | O | needing help! I will! > Keep repeating to yourself, this is not a diet, this is the way I eat > and I will eat this way for the rest of my life. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> O >> needing help! > >> Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I > >> was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I know this sound stupid and I almost certainly is, but I can't stick to it > if I know the numbers on the scale. How often should you step on the scale - Whenever you are not emotional about it. if you get emotional every time, then never step on the scale but use a tape measure instead. > As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( You don't know how long you've been low carbing? Okay. If you fell off the wagon it's hard to tell if you started back when you started or if you started more recently. What Dr Atkins meant as far as I can tell - If you started under 6 months ago you can't expect your numbers to be good. So mark 6 months after your start date on your calendar. That's when the cholesterol numbers will start to mak sense. Before then, the numbers are meaningless. >> How often should you step on the scale - Whenever you are not > emotional about it. if you get emotional every time, then never step > on the scale but use a tape measure instead. I don't use a scale. As I said earlier, the nurse at the asthma clinic made me go on and of course I couldn't 'not' look and that finished me:( >> As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cholesterol numbers will start to mak sense. Before then, the > numbers are meaningless. I understand. Thank you! > As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High. And you want triglycerides to be low also, but it doesn't have as good a mneumonic. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ Patti wrote: >> As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( > > You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High. > > And you want triglycerides to be low also, but it doesn't have as good a > mneumonic. I don't want LDL to be low, I just want it to be big and fluffy. I want VLDL to be low. Susan >> As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( > > You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High. Ok thank you. And what are the numbers I ought to be looking for. What numbers are the most dangerous? What is the number one must aim for please? > And you want triglycerides to be low also, but it doesn't have as > good a mneumonic. >>> As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( >> You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High. > > Ok thank you. And what are the numbers I ought to be looking for. What > numbers are the most dangerous? What is the number one must aim for please? When you get a copy of the lab resuls, it'll say what they consider normal. This isn't something people agree on. For instance, most doctors are happy if they get your LDL under 100, whereas Davis wants it under 60. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >>>> As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( >>> You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > This isn't something people agree on. For instance, most doctors are > happy if they get your LDL under 100, whereas Davis wants it under 60. Ok thanks! I will need to ask to see them, because they wouldn't normally give them to you. She will just tell me if I need to change anything and if so, what. >>>>> As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( >>>> You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > give them to you. She will just tell me if I need to change anything and > if so, what. The doctor is required by law, if you request them in writing, to give you a copy of any of your medical records and may charge you up to 25 cents per page. Bob >>>>>> As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( >>>>> You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > give you a copy of any of your medical records and may charge you up > to 25 cents per page. Well I am in UK but I wouldn't have any problem anyway. She will tell me anything I ask. :: Jackie Patti wrote: ::: Ophelia wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] :: normally give them to you. She will just tell me if I need to :: change anything and if so, what. Please get a printed copy of your lab report. Use it for future reference. >>> Jackie Patti wrote: >>>> Ophelia wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Please get a printed copy of your lab report. Use it for future > reference. That could be very difficult. I could ask her for the numbers and note them down myself? :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Ophelia wrote: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] :: That could be very difficult. I could ask her for the numbers and :: note them down myself? yes, but it's much better AFTER THE FACT to have a copy of the actual report . Why would that be difficult to get in the UK? >>> Roger Zoul wrote: >>>> Ophelia wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > yes, but it's much better AFTER THE FACT to have a copy of the actual > report . Why would that be difficult to get in the UK? This is the NHS. She probably has so many people to see that to take time out to print this.... but I will ask.. I promise. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::: Ophelia wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] :: This is the NHS. She probably has so many people to see that to :: take time out to print this.... but I will ask.. I promise. oh, so you don't pay? I can't believe the laws don't provide you the right to your information. In any case, please don't be timid about YOUR health. If it's important enough for you to make an extra trip in for, it's certain important enough for you to have written copies. heck, you might end up on some drug for life! Based on what? Numbers you can't even see? Nonsense, O! :) Also, I'm sure your doctor won't do it herself...don't they have nurses and aides and such? >>> This is the NHS. She probably has so many people to see that to >>> take time out to print this.... but I will ask.. I promise. > > oh, so you don't pay? Well, not directly no. We pay National Insurance on our salaries. I can't believe the laws don't provide you the > right to your information. Well, they do, but you have to make an official request and it takes time. In any case, please don't be timid about > YOUR health. If it's important enough for you to make an extra trip > in for, it's certain important enough for you to have written copies. > heck, you might end up on some drug for life! Based on what? Numbers > you can't even see? Nonsense, O! :) My Doc is very good and will let me see the numbers, no problem. > Also, I'm sure your doctor won't do it herself...don't they have > nurses and aides and such? Yes, of course, but they have their own work. The best I can see, is that I ask her to give me the numbers and write them down myself. I don't want to cause problems, they are very busy! I will get the numbers, I promise. I will make my appointment one day next week and i will report back. :: Roger Zoul wrote: ::::: This is the NHS. She probably has so many people to see that to [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] :: is that I ask her to give me the numbers and write them down myself. :: I don't want to cause problems, they are very busy! Don't forget you're paying for that work, one way or another. They work for you. You're not causing problems for them to ask for your lab work. :: I will get the numbers, I promise. :: :: I will make my appointment one day next week and i will report back. > Don't forget you're paying for that work, one way or another. They work for > you. You're not causing problems for them to ask for your lab work. They copy the stuff for each other all the time. All my labs get sent to my internist's office, who faxes them to my cardiologist, who faxes summaries of our appointment back to the internist, etc. It's not a big deal to ask them to send me a copy also. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> Don't forget you're paying for that work, one way or another. They >> work for you. You're not causing problems for them to ask for your [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > It's not a big deal to ask them to send me a copy also. Oh I shall ask for a copy! If it is not possible I shall write it all down! Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. | This is the NHS. She probably has so many people to see that to take | time out to print this.... but I will ask.. I promise. > Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an > excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. I do indeed:)) I will take it with me. ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have just remembered. Everything is on computer now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight from computer?? I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our goverment has a lot to answer for:((( >> This is the NHS. She probably has so many people to see that to take >> time out to print this.... but I will ask.. I promise. >> Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an >> excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight from > computer?? For cripes' sake, I'd hope so. What century is this? Not that a couple minutes at a copy machine would be such a hardship either. > I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any > more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our > goverment has a lot to answer for:((( And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a similar system. SignatureAaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz >>>Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an >>>excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a > similar system. Actually, I don't think we really know what we are "itching" for, but know that the existing system is a disgrace. You must admit that the existing "system" has a lot of defects. The individuals who buy insurance get it at far higher rates than those who are members of a homogeneous group plan such as at large places of employment. It is most likely true that no "ONE SYSTEM TO SUIT THEM ALL" exists. It is certainly true, that most people don't understand the principles of insurance and the intrinsic advantages and *disadvantages* in the first place. There is something operating here much like investment. In investments, it is pretty well understood that you can't get HIGH YIELD and HIGH SECURITY (low risk) in the same package. There are always advantages and disadvantages. Yet most people don't talk much about this intrinsic factor, and how it must be tolerated in things like insurance. HIGH SECURITY is like insurance automatically paying for everything with fast access. HIGH YIELD is insurance providing maximum benefits for lowest cost. These things are incompatible, and will likely never happen together. At least in one universal plan. > These things are incompatible, and will likely never happen together. > At least in one universal plan. We, of course, have paid into our NHS all our working lives, but we still pay for health insurance. I mentioned that I have, in the past couple of years, had both knees replaced. I also had implants in both eyes because of cataract. If I had to wait for the NHS I would be now blind and in a wheelchair. There is a receptionist at our docs surgery who can hardly walk because her knee is so bad. Even she can't get it done on the NHS. They say she must wait until she is much older. NHS is good for trauma but for anything else, it is rubbish. It is far to big and unwieldly. The goverment boasts that it puts millions into NHS but makes no reforms, so it is wasted. Everything now is also put out to tender. So, we have cleaners who have no interest in the wards they clean, no one there to sack them if they are not cleaning properly and we now have MRSA in most hospitals and dirty hospitals. I could go on but I am sure you get the picture >>These things are incompatible, and will likely never happen together. >>At least in one universal plan. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I could go on but I am sure you get the picture Bad Diet-Health science was to have the SOLUTION (low fat, low cholestoerol diet) and then spend all your money to PROVE this, and attempt to collect no information on the basic problem, just in case THIS SOLUTION doesn't work out so well. Bad public health issues are to look at other systems, such as the British NHS, and conclude that "that system is no good" and then fail to carefully dissect it to understand what were the driving forces that caused this "no good' result. I don't doubt that your claims of overall the system being "rubbish" are a reasonable description of what happens. You have a postulate about the lack of, as I intrepret it, "Lack of Real Management". This sort of complaint has cropped up with other health systems. It even crops up with some of the private insurance plans here in the USA and some of the medical facilities. Of course, the political process is best described as "making sausage in a sausage factory". If you saw how it was actually done, you wouldn't dare eat sausage. But all of this is just descriptive. Perhaps quite real, but still just descriptive. Taubes described the roots of some of the "Bad Science" well enough that some good things can come out of it. Such as the need to somehow move vital basic information across the seperated medical/scientific subdivisions fast enough that ordinary people aren't hurt by unscientific and outdated information. How to solve that problem, and the mitigation of that problem, will bring great benefits to regular people who are unfortunate enough to be patients of the existing overly specialized medical fields. >>>>Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an >>>>excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > know that the existing system is a disgrace. You must admit that the > existing "system" has a lot of defects. Absolutely. The biggest defect is that it's a "system" at all. For starters, any time you have a third-party paying for something (insurance) prices will skyrocket. That's just the nature of things when the person getting the service isn't paying directly out of pocket. If people had health insurance with a high deductible -- where you pay for the office visits and prescriptions when you get a cold, but you're covered if you get cancer and need chemotherapy -- it wouldn't be so bad; but comprehensive plans that cover every sniffle with premiums withheld by employers have really skewed things. It's *almost* as bad as a true socialized health care "system," but not quite. To relate this to the topic, I'm moving more and more to getting my food from local individuals instead of the nation's (world's, in some cases) food production "system." It's healthier, better for the local community and economy, and gives me more oversight into how the food is raised and processed. It's a shame that it's so difficult to do the same thing with medical care. Chiropractors and other "alternative" health care providers still operate that way, mainly because the "system" shunned them for so long and they had no choice but to go with a sort of "back to the people" approach. But for surgery and prescriptions and the like, it's all huge buildings and top-down bureaucracies. SignatureAaron -- 285/254/200 -- aaron.baugher.biz >>>>>Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an >>>>>excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > withheld by employers have really skewed things. It's *almost* as bad > as a true socialized health care "system," but not quite. A "system" can have copayments --- and in fact these have been around for many years. I have long had -- and still have -- an insurance "system" with copayments to assist the patient in appreciating the value of the system, and to limit (somewhat) unnecessary office visits for just a "cold" or an arbitrary ache or pain. I hope you speak in more measured "rants" in the future. I have "hope". At any rate, your conversation above fails to meet ordinary definitions of a meaningful exchange. Perhaps you will discover the "rant" on rereading, and take out any internal hostilities where it is productive to you, rather than merely relief. >>> Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an >>> excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a > similar system. It used to be wonderful until our government introduced 'targets' They are wrecking all kinds of things with 'targets' for example..... http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/apr/29/politics.ukgeneralelection2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6656411.stm You might also be interested in this next one too http://www.heartstats.org/atozpage.asp?id=1983 >>>> As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > This isn't something people agree on. For instance, most doctors are > happy if they get your LDL under 100, whereas Davis wants it under 60. Those numbers are absurdly low, set to sell drugs not assure good health. Susan >> When you get a copy of the lab resuls, it'll say what they consider >> normal. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Those numbers are absurdly low, set to sell drugs not assure good health. Davis doesn't push drugs. He does prescribe statins to a few patients, but much less often and at lower doses, than is commonly done and always prescribes CoQ10 along with. Davis gets most patients to his goals with diet, exercise and supplements like fish oil, vitamin D3, l-arginine and niacin. He thinks drugs and surgeries are way overprescribed and criticizes his collegues heavily. He thinks about the mainstream AHA advice about how Bernstein thinks of the ADA advice. He doesn't actually prescribe 60/60/60, but prefers you get your entire lipoprotein panel and stuff like lipoprotein(a), homocyesteine, etc. rather than just LDL, HDL and triglycerides. The 60/60/60 thang is just recommended if you can't get more detailed testing to see if you have primarily the good LDL and make sure you don't have the bad HDL, etc. He states clearly that LDL over 60 is kewl if it's the light fluffy stuff, and HDL over 60 isn't good if it's the one bad subfraction. He gets very technical about which patterns are good vs. bad and finds a lot of people's primary problem is along the lines of elevated lipoprotein(a) or low serum vitamin D - stuff most doctors don't even test for. However, if *all* you have to go on is LDL, HDL and triglycerides, he says aim for 60/60/60. I dunno how absurdly low 60/60/60 actually is. My LDL was under 60 when still hospitalized after my heart attack - the absurd bit is that they put me on a statin anyways when it was obvious my LDL had not caused the blockage. My triglycerides weren't below 60 nor my HDL above 60 - have to see what turns up next month at my next lipid panel, hopefully there will be some improvement. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > Davis doesn't push drugs. He does prescribe statins to a few patients, > but much less often and at lower doses, than is commonly done and always > prescribes CoQ10 along with. I understand that, but those numbers were promulgated by those who do sell drugs. Those goals are totally incompatible with good health, IMO, and based upon stroke, suicide and depression studies. > Davis gets most patients to his goals with diet, exercise and > supplements like fish oil, vitamin D3, l-arginine and niacin. He thinks > drugs and surgeries are way overprescribed and criticizes his collegues > heavily. He thinks about the mainstream AHA advice about how Bernstein > thinks of the ADA advice. Yabbut, those lipid goals are smack dab at the heart of the mainstream advice, just his gimmick differs. > He doesn't actually prescribe 60/60/60, but prefers you get your entire > lipoprotein panel and stuff like lipoprotein(a), homocyesteine, etc. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > to see what turns up next month at my next lipid panel, hopefully there > will be some improvement. Jackie, numbers much higher than that are associated with extreme longevity and large, bouyant LDL. Take the Ashkenazi Jews with LDL over 300 and extremely long lives. I think he's barking up the wrong tree, just using different notes. Susan >> Davis gets most patients to his goals with diet, exercise and >> supplements like fish oil, vitamin D3, l-arginine and niacin. He [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yabbut, those lipid goals are smack dab at the heart of the mainstream > advice, just his gimmick differs. I'd disagree on several counts. First, I've seen the guy change his mind when he sees other data. Some of his current recommendations on his site and blog differ from some stuff in his book. He's not spouting even his own party line, but actively learning. And second, he actually measures the blockages in his patients after treatment and sees that they've decreased. That was the first question on my mind after the bypass... how to unclog my arteries. > Jackie, numbers much higher than that are associated with extreme > longevity and large, bouyant LDL. Take the Ashkenazi Jews with LDL over > 300 and extremely long lives. With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it. When you don't have a full lipoprotein test though, you have to aim at what you do have. I'd not suggest a statin to get LDL down from 100 to 60; if the person was low-carbing, I'd especially not think so since the best guess is that increases the good LDL. But I'd also not suggest anyone think an LDL of 300 is OK unless they *know* that from testing how much is the good fluffy stuff. If my LDL that high, I'd try fish oil, vitamin D3, niacin, diet and exercise for a year first. If that didn't get it down, and I couldn't get anyone to do lipoprotein testing to verify it was the good stuff, I'd want Zetia or Werchol - cause my best guess is I'm not an Ashkenazi Jew. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > I'd disagree on several counts. > > First, I've seen the guy change his mind when he sees other data. Some > of his current recommendations on his site and blog differ from some > stuff in his book. He's not spouting even his own party line, but > actively learning. I'm not saying he's not actively learning, just that he's got no foundation for those recommendations outside of what's been promulgated by mainstream science. > And second, he actually measures the blockages in his patients after > treatment and sees that they've decreased. That was the first question > on my mind after the bypass... how to unclog my arteries. Ornish documented decreased blockages, and his recommendations also suck. One endpoint does not mean health and risks are improving overall. > With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL rather > than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it. > > When you don't have a full lipoprotein test though, you have to aim at > what you do have. If you have high HDL and low TGL, you can extrapolate that LDL is bouyant. Still, it's a poor predictor. > I'd not suggest a statin to get LDL down from 100 to 60; if the person > was low-carbing, I'd especially not think so since the best guess is > that increases the good LDL. > > But I'd also not suggest anyone think an LDL of 300 is OK unless they > *know* that from testing how much is the good fluffy stuff. I think more information is always desirable. But I'd also point out that Jenny, who used to post here, had a dad with over 300 LDL and he lived to 95; it was the large, fluffy stuff. Measuring and treating to LDL targets has been a major distraction from health promotion, IMO. > If my LDL that high, I'd try fish oil, vitamin D3, niacin, diet and > exercise for a year first. If that didn't get it down, and I couldn't > get anyone to do lipoprotein testing to verify it was the good stuff, > I'd want Zetia or Werchol - cause my best guess is I'm not an Ashkenazi > Jew. If my LDL were that high, I'd try to find out what my body was compensating for by raising it, and treat the root cause. Susan > I'm not saying he's not actively learning, just that he's got no > foundation for those recommendations outside of what's been promulgated > by mainstream science. From *science* - yes, I'd expect a good doctor to be basing his work on science. As you know, mainstream *medicine* doesn't necessarily do that. I don't think mainstream medicine has a lot to say about HDL2b vs. HDL3a vs. HDL-P particles. I would seriously doubt most doctors, even cardiologists, ever test for them. > I think more information is always desirable. But I'd also point out > that Jenny, who used to post here, had a dad with over 300 LDL and he > lived to 95; it was the large, fluffy stuff. Measuring and treating to > LDL targets has been a major distraction from health promotion, IMO. True. By the way Ophelia, you want to ask the doctor if you had a direct LDL measurement. The calculated LDL values are notoriously inaccurate and definetly not something to base a drug decision on. >> If my LDL that high, I'd try fish oil, vitamin D3, niacin, diet and >> exercise for a year first. If that didn't get it down, and I couldn't [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If my LDL were that high, I'd try to find out what my body was > compensating for by raising it, and treat the root cause. Maybe. It might be genetic though. Seems some people just have really high LDL, just as high lp(a) often runs in families. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> I'm not saying he's not actively learning, just that he's got no >> foundation for those recommendations outside of what's been >> promulgated by mainstream science. > > From *science* - yes, I'd expect a good doctor to be basing his work on > science. As you know, mainstream *medicine* doesn't necessarily do that. Point well taken. > I don't think mainstream medicine has a lot to say about HDL2b vs. HDL3a > vs. HDL-P particles. I would seriously doubt most doctors, even > cardiologists, ever test for them. True. > True. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Seems some people just have really high LDL, just as high lp(a) often > runs in families. Yabbut, not necessarily in isolation. My LDL shot back up when my adrenals were suppressed. You can figure out why, I know. :-) Susan > Yabbut, not necessarily in isolation. My LDL shot back up when my > adrenals were suppressed. You can figure out why, I know. :-) LOL! Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> Yabbut, not necessarily in isolation. My LDL shot back up when my >> adrenals were suppressed. You can figure out why, I know. :-) > > LOL! Hey! Please don't just LOL. At least *one* of us can't figure out anything:) >> I'm not saying he's not actively learning, just that he's got no >> foundation for those recommendations outside of what's been [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > By the way Ophelia, you want to ask the doctor if you had a direct LDL > measurement. I will! LOL she is going to wonder where I am getting all this from:)) > The calculated LDL values are notoriously inaccurate and definetly not > something to base a drug decision on. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Seems some people just have really high LDL, just as high lp(a) often > runs in families. > With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL > rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it. Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!! Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie??? >>With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL >>rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it. > > Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!! > > Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie??? VLDL and TGLs are the real baddies. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > VLDL and TGLs are the real baddies. Ok.... thanks! > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > VLDL and TGLs are the real baddies. And IDL. And Lp(a). Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >> With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL >> rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it. > > Well you just knocked down what I thought I knew!!!!!!!! > > Helppppppp!! I thought LDL was the baddy and HDL the goodie??? They keep changing the rules on ya. First, it was just total cholesterol, and it was all bad. Then it was LDL and HDL, with the LDL being bad and the HDL being good. But if you get even more detailed testing, they can break that down into even further - there's various types of LDL and HDL. Some of those have "good" LDL bits and "bad" HDL bits, just to add a further layer of complexity. You probably just had a regular lipid panel, so don't need to worry about the details of lioportien testing. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >>> With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL >>> rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You probably just had a regular lipid panel, so don't need to worry > about the details of lioportien testing. Phew! Thanks:)) >>> With a full lipoprotein pattern, you'd know it was the "good" LDL >>> rather than the bad "LDL" and not aim to fix it. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "good" LDL bits and "bad" HDL bits, just to add a further layer of > complexity. This BS is the very "heart" of the matter with cholesterol. They are essentially searching for how and what it is that is the problem with cholesterol. And the focus keeps changing because cholesterol never was the problem in the first place. It's not a further layer of complexity, Jackie, it's just more BS. > This BS is the very "heart" of the matter with cholesterol. They are > essentially searching for how and what it is that is the problem with > cholesterol. And the focus keeps changing because cholesterol never was the > problem in the first place. It's not a further layer of complexity, Jackie, > it's just more BS. I don't think it's the cholesterol at all, but the lipoproteins. There is definetly a very high correlation between high levels of lipoprotein(a) - a subfraction of LDL - and plaque formation. That being said, it looks like inflammation markers are even more predictive than lipoproteins. If you don't have inflammation, you don't seem to get plaque buildup regardless of what's in your blood. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ > Roger Zoul wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I don't think it's the cholesterol at all, but the lipoproteins. Well, the worry from the establishment is about cholesterol, not lipoproteins. There > is definetly a very high correlation between high levels of > lipoprotein(a) - a subfraction of LDL - and plaque formation. > > That being said, it looks like inflammation markers are even more > predictive than lipoproteins. If you don't have inflammation, you don't > seem to get plaque buildup regardless of what's in your blood. Yes, that makes sense. >>>As for the numbers you mentioned...... I don't have a clue:( >> >>You want LDL to be Low. You want HDL to be High. > > Ok thank you. And what are the numbers I ought to be looking for. What > numbers are the most dangerous? What is the number one must aim for please? High TGL and low HDL are the most dangerous pattern. Of all the lipids, LDL is the least predictive of CVD. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > High TGL and low HDL are the most dangerous pattern. Of all the > lipids, LDL is the least predictive of CVD. Oh dear. You will think I am terribly dim:( I know what LDL and HDL are! TGL is an unknown! > Oh dear. You will think I am terribly dim:( I know what LDL and HDL are! > TGL is an unknown! I'm sorry, my bad. TGL = triglycerides. Susan > x-no-archive: yes > >> Oh dear. You will think I am terribly dim:( I know what LDL and >> HDL are! TGL is an unknown! > > I'm sorry, my bad. TGL = triglycerides. That is something different then? Will my doc have that on the sheet too? :: Susan wrote: ::: x-no-archive: yes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] :: That is something different then? Will my doc have that on the :: sheet too? Yes, unless you live in Oz... >>> Susan wrote: >>>> x-no-archive: yes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yes, unless you live in Oz... UK >> x-no-archive: yes >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That is something different then? Will my doc have that on the sheet too? Yes, triglycerides is just the amount of fat floating in your blood. And yes, your doctor will probably have that too. Signaturehttp://www.ornery-geeks.org/consulting/ >>> x-no-archive: yes >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yes, triglycerides is just the amount of fat floating in your blood. > And yes, your doctor will probably have that too. Thank you! I am taking notes. she is not allowing you to know the results without paying for an office visit. She is likely to want you to take medication rather than diet and exercise because then you dont have to do office visits. Doctors do not do preventive medicine, insurance does not pay for it. Bob > Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I was > told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the cholesterol. > > How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me medication? > > Help appreciated please. > she is not allowing you to know the results without paying for an > office visit. She is likely to want you to take medication rather > than diet and exercise because then you dont have to do office > visits. Doctors do not do preventive medicine, insurance does not pay > for it. > Bob Hi Bob, I am in UK. I do have private insurance but only for trauma >> she is not allowing you to know the results without paying for an >> office visit. She is likely to want you to take medication rather [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hi Bob, I am in UK. I do have private insurance but only for trauma I'm in the US and have a question about your health care policy. If someone refuses what their doctor(s) suggest for preventive care, are there any repercussions? For example someone is an alcoholic and the doctors find they are in the early stages of liver cirrhosis. The doctors suggest abstaining from alcohol to reduce more damage and offer rehabilitation (detox) for alcoholism. If you don't follow those options and later when you need a liver transplant, will you be treated equally as someone who took the medical advice? In short, is the system non-judgmental or are their consequences to not following medical suggestions? SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm >> Hi Bob, I am in UK. I do have private insurance but only for trauma oopsh that should be for NON trauma > I'm in the US and have a question about your health care > policy. If someone refuses what their doctor(s) suggest for > preventive care, are there any repercussions? There could be yes. It depends on the doctor. For example, some surgeons refuse to operate on obese people or those who smoke, yet those same surgeons would offer the same patient the same operation as a private patient. > For example someone is an alcoholic and the doctors find > they are in the early stages of liver cirrhosis. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > liver transplant, will you be treated equally as someone who > took the medical advice? Not always > In short, is the system non-judgmental or are their > consequences to not following medical suggestions? As I said. It depends on your Doctor. My Doc is exceptionally good and I doubt if she would refuse me treatment. Although it could be taken out of her hands if she tried to get specialist care for me. > Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I was > told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the cholesterol. > > How will this fit in with low carb? Is she likely to give me medication? > > Help appreciated please. A good doctor is an advisor, somebody to ask questions, etc. Not a dictator. Its great that you're here asking questions. Educate yourself about you and your body and find a doctor who is a team player (if you haven't already). As far as cholesterol is concerned, I'm not convinced that its as bad as they say it is. Here are a couple of interesting resources for you, not as much about cholesterol as in regards to your general health and well being. http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/ http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/21/lkl.diet.debate.cnn All the Best! Mike >> Last week I had blood tests and today when I phoned for results, I >> was told to make an appointment to see the Doctor because of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/21/lkl.diet.debate.cnn Many thanks Mike:) / >> http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2007/10/21/lkl.diet.debate.cnn > > Many thanks Mike:) I have just watched that vid and I am very impressed. Once again, thank you!! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.