Cholesterol

[Guest guest]

Look on dadamo.com for studies listed - I am sure there are some.

" " the more sugar you consume the lower your growth hormone production

will be. " "

" " The more sugar that you consume the more cholesterol is produced by

your liver. " "

* Is there scientific backing for a cholesterol-carbs connection

too that

you know of?

Namaste,

Irene

[Guest guest]

Thanks !!!

THOMAS DEKANY wrote:

> Look on dadamo.com for studies listed - I am sure there are some.

>

> " " the more sugar you consume the lower your growth hormone production

> will be. " "

>

> " " The more sugar that you consume the more cholesterol is produced by

> your liver. " "

>

> * Is there scientific backing for a cholesterol-carbs connection

> too that

> you know of?

> Namaste,

> Irene

[Guest guest]

Irene,

You asked about the Diabetes book and I know you like to use rice bran as

your source of fiber so I thought I would say again that rice bran and any

other kind rice, including rice milk, are downgraded in the Diabetes book to

Neutral Infrequent.

I think that flaxseed soaked whole or ground and Larch are the primary

recommended sources of supplemental fiber for type Os (LR4YT p165). The

side benefit from flax is that it is a great source of lignans.

Don

Re: Re: Cholesterol

So I am adding in more olive oil, fiber and garlic to hopefully help,.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/2005 3:15:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

sharonferris@... writes:

I have friend who is a doctor and he believes it is the pharmaceutical

companies who are setting the levels.

That's pretty scarey. Is that like supersizing a happy meal because it's

" good " for you?--LOL.

[Guest guest]

I agree with you Max. They have also lowered the level of blood sugar reading

to put people on drugs sooner. I have friend who is a doctor and he believes it

is the pharmaceutical companies who are setting the levels.

Cholesterol

In a message dated 2/18/2005 9:50:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

sharonferris@... writes:

The doctor was amazed at how high my good cholesterol was - way over normal.

I get really scared of doctors who start tinkering with me when there's

nothing wrong. We have to ask ourselves what does " normal " mean? Who decided

that? The makers of Lipitor

are starting to say that if your cholesterol is over 200, you need their

product. They've saturated their market and are looking for more market

share.

[Guest guest]

No, it's good for them, financially.

Re: Cholesterol

In a message dated 2/19/2005 3:15:11 PM Eastern Standard Time,

sharonferris@... writes:

I have friend who is a doctor and he believes it is the pharmaceutical

companies who are setting the levels.

That's pretty scarey. Is that like supersizing a happy meal because it's

" good " for you?--LOL.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/2005 8:10:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

walou@... writes:

He also told the kitchen ( like every heart patient) that I was to be on

no sodium heart healthy diet.

Is the food served in the heart ward the worst you've ever had or what? My

sister sneaked me a big mac.

[Guest guest]

Wow, I could have been even more drugged in my early 20s if the pharm

companies had their way, as it was I was already on 3-5 prescriptions at any

given time. I was a couple points short on blood sugar and triglycerides

for prediabetes, and well over 200 on cholesterol. It's all 'normal' now,

thanks to BTD, and my only Rx is a low dose Armour. Even if those levels

weren't so normal, I'd say no to the drugs.

Re: Cholesterol

I agree with you Max. They have also lowered the level of blood sugar

reading to put people on drugs sooner. I have friend who is a doctor and he

believes it is the pharmaceutical companies who are setting the levels.

Cholesterol

In a message dated 2/18/2005 9:50:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

sharonferris@... writes:

The doctor was amazed at how high my good cholesterol was - way over

normal.

I get really scared of doctors who start tinkering with me when there's

nothing wrong. We have to ask ourselves what does " normal " mean? Who

decided

that? The makers of Lipitor

are starting to say that if your cholesterol is over 200, you need their

product. They've saturated their market and are looking for more market

share.

[Guest guest]

>I get really scared of doctors who start

> tinkering with me when there's nothing

> wrong.

I'd like to share an experience I had re this topic... About 1 1/2

years ago I had a heart attack and was treated by a top

cardio doctor. My boys asked him what caused the attack. His reply---we

all KNOW what causes H.A -- high cholesterol!

I told him that my cholesterol at my last test. (2 months prior) was

170. Not believing me, he did another test---it came back 140. Despite

that, he still tried to force the pills. When I went home, he sent a

prescription for Lipitor with me, tho I said I didn't want it. -- the

prescr. is still in my file.

He also told the kitchen ( like every heart patient) that I was to be on

no sodium heart healthy diet. After the blood draw that evening, he

called the kitchen, changed the order and sent in 2 cans of pepsi to

increase the sodium in my body.

LOL needless to say, I didn't become his favorite patient.

Heart patients are treated as if 'one size fits all'. .....Wanda

[Guest guest]

Sharon Ferris wrote:

> I agree with you Max. They have also lowered the level of blood sugar reading

to put people on drugs sooner. I have friend who is a doctor and he believes it

is the pharmaceutical companies who are setting the levels.

Dear Sharon,

I would probably have agreed with you till quite recently, but no more!!!

The level of blood sugar needs to be lowered still more if anything

IMO: It's not to do with pharmaceutical conpanies however, it's beause

the damage of glucose in the blood is far greater than was previously

thought, even at very slightly elevated levels.

Dr Bernstein who is a diabetes sufferer himsslf since age 11 (and is

now 68) and who has spent his lfe figuring out how to get healthy and

help others get as healthy as he is - points out clearly in his book

that even a slightly elevated glucose level for an extended time - does

very significant damage.

I have had reason to find that out the hard way myself. My glucose has

been elevated for years but only in November last year did it reach the

official diabetes levels. I sure as hell wish someone had pointed out

the dangers of my much lower levels before it got too late and I now

have irreversible damage!!!

It is too late now. Peripheral nerve damage is permanent I am told, and

I have a lot of it. So is kidney damage though I am proving that

somewhat reversible with homeopathy.

As for pancreas damage - I do not know if I can recover that.

I WISH I had known how dangerous my supposedly low enough blood glucose

was. I read Dr Bernstein's book only after I was diagnosed formally with

diabetes - fasting blood of 126 or more was the criterion used. It

should have been fasting blood of over 90 in my opinion after seeing

what levels cause which damage well documented.

Before Nov 2004 I was " not diabetic " and did not even consider

buying a book with " diabetes " as part of the title. More's the pity. I

now have to live with the results.

There is no drug company profiting. I simply do not eat carbs. If I

totally crave a carb, I'll have a single dark chocolate square or

equivalent and a 1/4 glass of red wine to counter the carbs in the

chocolate - or I'll swim a half mile and have 3 squares.

I follow Dr Bernstein's approach which avoids drugs if possible but uses

them if necessary to control glucose to a narrow beneficial range of 80

to 90. Mine is not yet controlled that well just on diet but gets better

now each month unless I have an infection - then it rockets up. It takes

time to get it down and under control. I declined the option of drugs

while doing so.

My point is that with the current diabetes cut-off people will have

serious bodily damage BEFORE they are diagnosed as having diabetes. How

can that possibly be a good thing, even if drug companies do profit, and

surely that is a better criterion than whether drug companies profit.

This damage from small glucose elevantions is a well kept secret that

needs to be exposed!!!!

On the issue of how high the cholesterol can be, it is the ratio of LDL

and HDL that matters according to most people looking at real damage,

not the total cholesterol. If you have very high good HDL, it will raise

the " total cholesterol " . In my opinion the latter is not a significant

figure as it adds something that SHOULD be high to something that SHOULD

be low - no logic in doing that as a very high HDL plus a low LDL is

extremely heathy but still comes out a high number. The *same* number

from a high LDL and low HDL would possibly be dangerous.

So LDL should not be too high in my opinion but let the HDL go as high

as it likes. Triglycerides should also not be high in my opinion.

there's more research on the harm associated with these than I am ready

to ignore - and since 85% of people are type O, then the " average " test

has to be mostly on type O people - they can not get off scott free

" because it doesn't matter for type O " when they are 85% of the studies

just by pure statistical prevalence of the blood type.

I like Dr Bernstein's take on lipid profile just as I like his take on

glucose. (And he is not asociated with a drug company and generally

expects his patients to use diet to control things, not drugs.)

He advocates a high protein, high fat diet - but not a lot of

saturated fat. His own lipid profile is impressive IMO:

LDL 63; HDL 116; Triglycerides 45; Lopoprotein(a) undetectable.

.... as are those of his patients, especially for diabetics who have a

much harder time getting good looking glucose and lipid profiles.

Studies show that fat consumed as part of a high carbohydrate diet is

converted to stored fat, whereas far eaten as part of a low carbohydrate

diet is burned off. This makes sense as *insulin* is our fat-storage

hormone and it can do nothing unless carbohydrate is present.

Anyway - I have learned the hard way that blood glucose needs to be

EVERYONE's concern - all the time - and should be between 80 and 90

units at all times inclulding after meals, for anyone who does not want

glucose damage to their body. Glucose turns out to be *extremely*

damaging stuff, even in very slightly elevated amounts over time. It is

glucose that does the kidney damage, peripheral neuropathy and many

other evils often thought to be due to other causes.

So I am all for lowering the glucose cut-off for what is acceptable,

whether or not it is called diabetes at that level. It is at least

pancreas damage, and risk of other damage.

The bottom line is that if you can not store insulin well enough to keep

blood sugar below 90, then you *do* have a damaged pancreas and you

*will* have body damage over time. However it is labelled :-))

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

90? Whoops. Perhaps I should get his book. Mine hovers around 90. Perhaps

that explains my heart palpitations when I have had any sugar in the last 8

hours. Would that make sense to you?

Re: Cholesterol

Sharon Ferris wrote:

> I agree with you Max. They have also lowered the level of blood sugar

reading to put people on drugs sooner. I have friend who is a doctor and he

believes it is the pharmaceutical companies who are setting the levels.

Dear Sharon,

I would probably have agreed with you till quite recently, but no more!!!

The level of blood sugar needs to be lowered still more if anything

IMO: It's not to do with pharmaceutical conpanies however, it's beause

the damage of glucose in the blood is far greater than was previously

thought, even at very slightly elevated levels.

Dr Bernstein who is a diabetes sufferer himsslf since age 11 (and is

now 68) and who has spent his lfe figuring out how to get healthy and

help others get as healthy as he is - points out clearly in his book

that even a slightly elevated glucose level for an extended time - does

very significant damage.

I have had reason to find that out the hard way myself. My glucose has

been elevated for years but only in November last year did it reach the

official diabetes levels. I sure as hell wish someone had pointed out

the dangers of my much lower levels before it got too late and I now

have irreversible damage!!!

It is too late now. Peripheral nerve damage is permanent I am told, and

I have a lot of it. So is kidney damage though I am proving that

somewhat reversible with homeopathy.

As for pancreas damage - I do not know if I can recover that.

I WISH I had known how dangerous my supposedly low enough blood glucose

was. I read Dr Bernstein's book only after I was diagnosed formally with

diabetes - fasting blood of 126 or more was the criterion used. It

should have been fasting blood of over 90 in my opinion after seeing

what levels cause which damage well documented.

Before Nov 2004 I was " not diabetic " and did not even consider

buying a book with " diabetes " as part of the title. More's the pity. I

now have to live with the results.

There is no drug company profiting. I simply do not eat carbs. If I

totally crave a carb, I'll have a single dark chocolate square or

equivalent and a 1/4 glass of red wine to counter the carbs in the

chocolate - or I'll swim a half mile and have 3 squares.

I follow Dr Bernstein's approach which avoids drugs if possible but uses

them if necessary to control glucose to a narrow beneficial range of 80

to 90. Mine is not yet controlled that well just on diet but gets better

now each month unless I have an infection - then it rockets up. It takes

time to get it down and under control. I declined the option of drugs

while doing so.

My point is that with the current diabetes cut-off people will have

serious bodily damage BEFORE they are diagnosed as having diabetes. How

can that possibly be a good thing, even if drug companies do profit, and

surely that is a better criterion than whether drug companies profit.

This damage from small glucose elevantions is a well kept secret that

needs to be exposed!!!!

On the issue of how high the cholesterol can be, it is the ratio of LDL

and HDL that matters according to most people looking at real damage,

not the total cholesterol. If you have very high good HDL, it will raise

the " total cholesterol " . In my opinion the latter is not a significant

figure as it adds something that SHOULD be high to something that SHOULD

be low - no logic in doing that as a very high HDL plus a low LDL is

extremely heathy but still comes out a high number. The *same* number

from a high LDL and low HDL would possibly be dangerous.

So LDL should not be too high in my opinion but let the HDL go as high

as it likes. Triglycerides should also not be high in my opinion.

there's more research on the harm associated with these than I am ready

to ignore - and since 85% of people are type O, then the " average " test

has to be mostly on type O people - they can not get off scott free

" because it doesn't matter for type O " when they are 85% of the studies

just by pure statistical prevalence of the blood type.

I like Dr Bernstein's take on lipid profile just as I like his take on

glucose. (And he is not asociated with a drug company and generally

expects his patients to use diet to control things, not drugs.)

He advocates a high protein, high fat diet - but not a lot of

saturated fat. His own lipid profile is impressive IMO:

LDL 63; HDL 116; Triglycerides 45; Lopoprotein(a) undetectable.

... as are those of his patients, especially for diabetics who have a

much harder time getting good looking glucose and lipid profiles.

Studies show that fat consumed as part of a high carbohydrate diet is

converted to stored fat, whereas far eaten as part of a low carbohydrate

diet is burned off. This makes sense as *insulin* is our fat-storage

hormone and it can do nothing unless carbohydrate is present.

Anyway - I have learned the hard way that blood glucose needs to be

EVERYONE's concern - all the time - and should be between 80 and 90

units at all times inclulding after meals, for anyone who does not want

glucose damage to their body. Glucose turns out to be *extremely*

damaging stuff, even in very slightly elevated amounts over time. It is

glucose that does the kidney damage, peripheral neuropathy and many

other evils often thought to be due to other causes.

So I am all for lowering the glucose cut-off for what is acceptable,

whether or not it is called diabetes at that level. It is at least

pancreas damage, and risk of other damage.

The bottom line is that if you can not store insulin well enough to keep

blood sugar below 90, then you *do* have a damaged pancreas and you

*will* have body damage over time. However it is labelled :-))

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

walou@... wrote:

>>I get really scared of doctors who start

>>tinkering with me when there's nothing

>>wrong.

I'm scared of doctors period.

And vets.

My policy is no drugs; I'll see a doctor to get their opinion but I do

not consider that as the same as asking for treatment. Vets are worse

because they will give drugs behind your back even if you put in writing

that they may not.

There are a lot more options for treatment - if it seems needed after

getting more information to confirm what's diagnosed.

Last time I took a cat to the vet, they diagnosed cholangiohepatitis

when the problem was pyometra.

Previous time I took a cat to the vet, they injected her with a drug

contra-indicated for felines - for a cut in her side needing one stitch,

and my favourite cat was dead 2 days later.

Recent client took her cat with swollen abdomen to the vet and had her

cat diagnosed as terminal FIP, was told it was incurable and she should

euthanize. She took the cat home. A week or so later the " cure " occurred

- a litter of healthy kittens.

Someone on my cat health list just had her father's cat diagnosed with

terminal liver failure. Actually the cat had IBD; nothing wrong with the

liver.

Do vets just suck their thumb and come up with a diagnosis?

Scary.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

Irene: I am noticing reduced vision in one eye--I'm hoping it isn't

irreversible. What's your experience and are you doing anything about it other

than restricted carbs. thanks, shirley

Re: Cholesterol

Sharon Ferris wrote:

> I agree with you Max. They have also lowered the level of blood sugar

reading to put people on drugs sooner. I have friend who is a doctor and he

believes it is the pharmaceutical companies who are setting the levels.

Dear Sharon,

I would probably have agreed with you till quite recently, but no more!!!

The level of blood sugar needs to be lowered still more if anything

IMO: It's not to do with pharmaceutical conpanies however, it's beause

the damage of glucose in the blood is far greater than was previously

thought, even at very slightly elevated levels.

Dr Bernstein who is a diabetes sufferer himsslf since age 11 (and is

now 68) and who has spent his lfe figuring out how to get healthy and

help others get as healthy as he is - points out clearly in his book

that even a slightly elevated glucose level for an extended time - does

very significant damage.

I have had reason to find that out the hard way myself. My glucose has

been elevated for years but only in November last year did it reach the

official diabetes levels. I sure as hell wish someone had pointed out

the dangers of my much lower levels before it got too late and I now

have irreversible damage!!!

It is too late now. Peripheral nerve damage is permanent I am told, and

I have a lot of it. So is kidney damage though I am proving that

somewhat reversible with homeopathy.

As for pancreas damage - I do not know if I can recover that.

I WISH I had known how dangerous my supposedly low enough blood glucose

was. I read Dr Bernstein's book only after I was diagnosed formally with

diabetes - fasting blood of 126 or more was the criterion used. It

should have been fasting blood of over 90 in my opinion after seeing

what levels cause which damage well documented.

Before Nov 2004 I was " not diabetic " and did not even consider

buying a book with " diabetes " as part of the title. More's the pity. I

now have to live with the results.

There is no drug company profiting. I simply do not eat carbs. If I

totally crave a carb, I'll have a single dark chocolate square or

equivalent and a 1/4 glass of red wine to counter the carbs in the

chocolate - or I'll swim a half mile and have 3 squares.

I follow Dr Bernstein's approach which avoids drugs if possible but uses

them if necessary to control glucose to a narrow beneficial range of 80

to 90. Mine is not yet controlled that well just on diet but gets better

now each month unless I have an infection - then it rockets up. It takes

time to get it down and under control. I declined the option of drugs

while doing so.

My point is that with the current diabetes cut-off people will have

serious bodily damage BEFORE they are diagnosed as having diabetes. How

can that possibly be a good thing, even if drug companies do profit, and

surely that is a better criterion than whether drug companies profit.

This damage from small glucose elevantions is a well kept secret that

needs to be exposed!!!!

On the issue of how high the cholesterol can be, it is the ratio of LDL

and HDL that matters according to most people looking at real damage,

not the total cholesterol. If you have very high good HDL, it will raise

the " total cholesterol " . In my opinion the latter is not a significant

figure as it adds something that SHOULD be high to something that SHOULD

be low - no logic in doing that as a very high HDL plus a low LDL is

extremely heathy but still comes out a high number. The *same* number

from a high LDL and low HDL would possibly be dangerous.

So LDL should not be too high in my opinion but let the HDL go as high

as it likes. Triglycerides should also not be high in my opinion.

there's more research on the harm associated with these than I am ready

to ignore - and since 85% of people are type O, then the " average " test

has to be mostly on type O people - they can not get off scott free

" because it doesn't matter for type O " when they are 85% of the studies

just by pure statistical prevalence of the blood type.

I like Dr Bernstein's take on lipid profile just as I like his take on

glucose. (And he is not asociated with a drug company and generally

expects his patients to use diet to control things, not drugs.)

He advocates a high protein, high fat diet - but not a lot of

saturated fat. His own lipid profile is impressive IMO:

LDL 63; HDL 116; Triglycerides 45; Lopoprotein(a) undetectable.

... as are those of his patients, especially for diabetics who have a

much harder time getting good looking glucose and lipid profiles.

Studies show that fat consumed as part of a high carbohydrate diet is

converted to stored fat, whereas far eaten as part of a low carbohydrate

diet is burned off. This makes sense as *insulin* is our fat-storage

hormone and it can do nothing unless carbohydrate is present.

Anyway - I have learned the hard way that blood glucose needs to be

EVERYONE's concern - all the time - and should be between 80 and 90

units at all times inclulding after meals, for anyone who does not want

glucose damage to their body. Glucose turns out to be *extremely*

damaging stuff, even in very slightly elevated amounts over time. It is

glucose that does the kidney damage, peripheral neuropathy and many

other evils often thought to be due to other causes.

So I am all for lowering the glucose cut-off for what is acceptable,

whether or not it is called diabetes at that level. It is at least

pancreas damage, and risk of other damage.

The bottom line is that if you can not store insulin well enough to keep

blood sugar below 90, then you *do* have a damaged pancreas and you

*will* have body damage over time. However it is labelled :-))

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

Shirley Cuban wrote:

> Irene: I am noticing reduced vision in one eye--I'm hoping it isn't

irreversible. What's your experience and are you doing anything about it other

than restricted carbs. thanks, shirley

Hi Shirley,

I had wonderful 20/20 vision till this happened, and it is really

quite seriously deteriorated now. It's only since I started controlling

glucose very carefully that the deterioration seems to have stopped.

I am also using homeopathy - so not sure which helps more.

I did also develop glaucoma which is now controlled thanks to diet

and homeopathy - homeopathy is pretty good for glaucoma.

My blood pressure is now 102/66, which helps. That came down on

homeopathy.

I also have an expensive computer screen to give the least eye damage

and best resolution - cost more than the rest of my system put together.

The bottom line is really to do the best diet and to control glucose no

matter how much I miss my favourite carbs. I keep suitable snacks with

me everywhere I go, to help. Such as:

Spicy pumpkin pips

Hazelnuts

Walnuts

Nori strips (bought in sheets)

Dried mushroom pieces (try several - find one/some you like)

If I don't know how long I'll be away from home I take along boiled eggs

or a cooked salmon pattie in a food snack pouch. And I keep a can of

sardines handy incase I get stuck somewhere. (Skipping a meal shoots up

the glucose as my liver converts muscle to sugar.)

I also keep small bottles of red wine handy incase I goof up, as it

helps lower blood sugar, and I enjoy red wine. It makes a good desert

with some cheese (an avoid for me, but cheese and wine is a great

substitute on social occasions for desert). And I don't mind being

" social " at home either now and then :-)

red wine is also good if I over-eat. Big meals are a no-no, it

raises sugar too much; the idea is to make " small mistakes " not big

ones, so I try not to do anything in excess :-)

Dunno if that helps?

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc; AASCA; MCSSA; D.I.Hom.

P.O.Box 4703, Spokane, WA 99220-0703.

http://www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html

Veterinary Homeopath and Feline Information Counsellor.

[Guest guest]

>From: <kennio@...>

>I have never thought much about my cholesterol being a potential problem

>until recently since

>several doctors over the years have stated that they envied my cholesterol

>level of 130. I do

>know that since I have been trying to re-mineralize myself over the last 18

>months or so, that my

>level has risen to 160.

How are your triglycerides? If those are elevated, then your total

cholesterol is falsely elevated as total cholesterol = HDL + LDL + 20% of

triglycerides. (If my triglycerides were only 112, my cholesterol would be

under 100.)

In my case, my thyroid doc said it would have to be confirmed by a

hemotologist to be official, but because my wife's, my son's and my MCV,

MCH, were off in a particular way, because my cholesterol is low, and

because Dr. Mercola says that his is sometimes dangerously low because of an

inherited anemia called thalassemia, I had the 3 of us tested for it. It

involves a blood test for hemoglobin A2. My wife and son were in the range

my thyroid doctors lab book said it would be for thalassemia. Mine was on

the border, but supposedly both parents have to have it to pass it on, so

it's highly likely that's what caused my low cholesterol. And, it's highly

likely the low cholesterol is what causes my adrenal problems.

That, or the PBB you made me aware of.

Skipper

_________________________________________________________________

Try the new Live Search today!

http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us & FORM=WLMTAG

[Guest guest]

iodine/Lugols used to be used to treat hyperthyroidism.

Gracia who has been hypo, hyper, hypo, hyper

50mg Iodoral per day.

My LDL Cholesterol has dropped to 5. The only thing I have found that might cause it is malnutrition or a hyperthyroid. Has anyone had experience using Lugol's for hyperthroidism?

[Guest guest]

I have used Lugols to treat hyperthyroidism.

>

>

> iodine/Lugols used to be used to treat hyperthyroidism.

> Gracia who has been hypo, hyper, hypo, hyper

> 50mg Iodoral per day.

>

> My LDL Cholesterol has dropped to 5. The only thing I have found that

> might cause it is malnutrition or a hyperthyroid. Has anyone had

> experience using Lugol's for hyperthroidism?

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ann

Unfortunately, nobody can tell you how fast cholesterol decreases and at what rate. There are various drugs, both synthetic and natural and diets that will help your cholesterol but we are all individuals and what works for one will not work for another. However, having a slow metabolism causes cholesterol to form, and once you get on the thyroid treatment that raises your metabolism, this helps lower your cholesterol level.

Luv - Sheila

Hi,

Can anyone tell me how fast cholesterol decreases and at what rate?

Ann

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now.

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.2/1389 - Release Date: 21/04/2008 08:34

[Guest guest]

But I saw a TV programme where a human guinea pig who, from a test, had

low to moderate cholesterol was put on a rich diet. Tested again within

a matter of weeks, his cholesterol had gone very high.

Rgds, Hans

Hi Ann

Unfortunately, nobody can tell you how fast cholesterol decreases and

at what rate. ...

Luv - Sheila

[Guest guest]

I’m recently diagnosed Type II Diabetic. My latest labs show my cholesterol

to be Triglycerides are 458 and HDL is 35. The report says it can’t

accurately calculate my LDL because the Triglycerides are so high. The doc

wants me on 2000mg/day of niacin and gave me a script for Gemfibrozil 600mg/day.

I know there’s some debate about cholesterol and triglycerides. Is there

something natural I can do to get these numbers more in line with what’s

considered normal?

[Guest guest]

I've looked at a few older posts and I think I need to take:300 mg coq10350mg niacinVit c (not sure on dose level)Magnesium (not sure of dose)

Hello Jane,

Well done for stopping the statins. Yes, the above listed supplements should help lowering your Chol and blood pressure (is yours high?) – also, the correct level of thyroid hormone will help levelling out Chol and BP.

Vit C is good for just about everything, in particular the adrenals .... start with 1000 mg (or 500 mg if you were super sensitive) and slowly build up to bowel tolerance. I take about 3000 mg per day, but we are all different.

Magnesium is needed for muscles, nerves and a whole lot more.... take at least 400 mg per day. If you tend to get palpitations, take more... I take 800 – 950 mg per day. But you need to be careful – they act like a laxative. For that reason I take chelated Magnesium citrate. It's kinder on the intestines.

Here are the benefits of Magnesium:

http://blog.imva.info/medicine/stress-magnesium-disease

http://www.henryspink.org/magnesium.htm

Also remember that taking Selenium 180 iu per day is a `must' for every hypothyroid patient, and a good Vit B complex is also helpful (50 mg of each of the B vitamins).

With best wishes,

[Guest guest]

Thank you . This is a big step for me to take. I'd never been ill

before my heart attack and tend to think that everything prescribed for me is

necessary. I asked my endo about stopping statins and his reply was that they

where keeping me alive! You can probably imagine the trepidation I feel.

I will order everything tonight and start the moment I get it all.

Is it the flushing niacin I need to get? I think Sheila said that at one time

but I forget.

Btw my blood pressure isn't high and wasn't before the heart attack. I now take

beta blockers but at the moment would be too scared to stop them. I'll ask at

my tablet review if I can cut them down.

Many thanks

Jane

> Well done for stopping the statins. Yes, the above listed supplements

> should help lowering your Chol and blood pressure (is yours high?) �

> also, the correct level of thyroid hormone will help levelling out Chol

> and BP.

[Ed]

[Guest guest]

Very sensible. Vitamin C you should take 1000 3 times daily (or

to bowel tolerance) and yes, any excess will be excreted plus Magnesium 450mgs

daily with the Niacin and CQ10. Do not buy the non=-flushing Niacin though, it

doesn't work the same.

Luv - Sheila

After reading all the stuff about statins I'm

stopping taking them, especially as I've been getting so much cramp.

I've looked at a few older posts and I think I need to take:

300 mg coq10

350mg niacin

Vit c (not sure on dose level)

Magnesium (not sure of dose)

Is this correct? Please could you also tell me if any particular brand is

better to buy.

If you have too much of any of these in your body will you just excrete them or

could they be stored to make toxic levels?

Many thanks

Jane

No

virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12

[Guest guest]

Jane, have you tried your local health food store. Give them a

ring and ask whether they have the 'flushing' Vitamin B3 and what is the

highest dose they have.

Luv - Sheila

Can anyone tell me the best flushing niacin to buy. I've looked and seen some

slow release ones and some with other stuff in and I'm getting a bit lost.

Email me if you don't want to post a name. I'd also appreciate knowing the best

place to buy it from.

Many thanks

Jane

No

virus found in this message.

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4770 - Release Date: 01/27/12