Dr. Mercola July 26 2007 40,825 views
Reuters July 24, 2007
This is a topic near and dear to my heart, as my cholesterol has been as low as 75 when I was a naive young doctor and felt that your cholesterol could not be too low.
While many people worry that their cholesterol is too high, few give a thought to the damage that can result if your cholesterol is too low. When it comes to cholesterol, lower is not always better.I speak from personal experience on this, because, as many of you know, I have struggled with low cholesterol for much of my life. Cholesterol is not the villain it has been made out to be. Quite to the contrary, cholesterol:
If your cholesterol dips too low, you will increase your risk of depression, stroke, violent behavior, and suicide.Despite this, in 2004 the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce their LDL cholesterol to specific, very low, levels.Prior to this, a 130-milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered healthy. The updated guidelines, however, recommended levels of less than 100, or even less than 70, for patients at very high risk. Their recommendations for obtaining these incredibly low LDL levels? Taking cholesterol-lowering statin drugs … sometimes up to two or three varieties.There is no evidence to support that such low cholesterol levels are beneficial, and increasing numbers of studies like the one above are pointing to the risks.Meanwhile, even if you DID want to lower your cholesterol, taking statin drugs is the last option you should consider. Cholesterol-lowering drugs have been linked to everything from nerve damage to memory loss, and, because they deplete the body of beneficial Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), may actually INCREASE the risk of heart disease.There’s no need to risk dangerous statin side effects to keep your cholesterol levels where they should be. All you need to do is follow these steps:
About a year ago, I switched my toddler to Richard Hebron's raw milk (he's the farmer who was unfairly attacked by the Michigan agricultural people and his inventory seized). Well, he's still in business because they couldn't find any evidence of harm but dozens of us came forward with our success stories, and my daughter went from a scrawny, 5th percentile, SEVERELY constipated toddler to a charming, regular (as in bowels) thriving child, who gained 10 pounds and grew 5 inches in one year. I myself now consume the raw milk and Richard's meat and poultry as often as I can, but recently when I had my cholesterol checked at the doctor, it was 255. However, my HDL was very, very high, and the ratio of bad to good was in the protective range as well. I'm wondering if I should worry, or just assume that all that good HDL is good for me. My blood pressure is low, and I actually lose weight on Richard's food, despite the tasty fats of animals raised with natural dignity. But I can't find anything in Dr. Mercola's essays about whether 255 is too high. Any suggestions?
I don't know, jlm, but it is worth wondering about. What were "normal levels" when our grandparents consumed such food regularly?
I personally (opinion here) don't worry about my elevated levels too much as the other risk factors such as hight bp & family members with early heart disease are not present. Most MDs would try to put you on statins at that level tho.
Jim you might try eating 1-3 T of coconut oil or 1/4 can of coconut milk a day and add 1/2t of cinnamon to your diet. Anyway lost 35# and am much healthier. Went from next appointment need cholesterol meds to optimal cholesterol in 8 months. Read more about that in Bruce Fife books, a naturalpath. Yes it is saturated fat but it is easy on your liver and gallbladder because at body temperature it is clear and flowing. The body doesn't have to work hard to use it. Good luck.