Discussion Board

I've been on the McDougall/Esselstyn diet for a couple of months now, and just got my lipids tested. I've been on statins for at least ten years, due to crummy lipids and really bad cardio history on my father's side, but no signs of blockage (I stopped the statins for non-medical reasons about 5 months ago). Will turn 50 this year. I've started exercising 40m 4 days per week @ 130bpm, have lost 20 lbs these last 2 months, down to BMI of 19.7.

My cardiologist wants me on 40mg Lipitor, but I'm reluctant to throw in the towel just yet on drugs (diet is for life, so no question there). I want to get under 150 TC to become 'heart-attack proof', as per Esselstyn.

So, have I given the diet long enough? Maybe my numbers are still in flux? I haven't been 100% perfect in my diet. A very small amount of oil probably crept into maybe one otherwise-McDougall-compliant meal out per week. Probably eating more fresh fruit than I should. Could those transgressions make a significant difference?

Any thoughts or advice are definitely appreciated.

If it were ME, I wouldn't go on a statin w/ 160 TC. That's just me, though. And I don't play a doctor on the interwebs.

Keep in mind that it will keep going down. Too bad you don't have pre-McDougall/pre-statin numbers, b/c I'm sure they'd be higher than that. It can take many months for one's cholesterol to drop to where it's going to stay when you start on this WOE.

If this were me, I would keep on keeping on. Be VERY strict--MWL if possible. Re-check in 6 mos.

You could also ask Dr. McDougall: drmcdougall@drmcdougall.com

Thank you so much for the feedback Elizabeth. I understand you Stars aren't doctors, but it is very helpful to compare your experiences with what my cardiologist is telling me. He wants to test me again in three months after starting again immediately on the Lipitor, but I'm thinking I'll push back on the Lipitor until after that test. That would be five months on the diet - enough? I'm so thin already and still losing, so am reluctant to go on MWL.

So, nothing too alarming in those other numbers? My bugaboo has always been low HDL.

HDL isn't worth your notice, per Dr. McDougall.

Read this:
http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougal ... pufav5.htm (scroll down)

It is only there to clean out your LDL. Yeah, your LDL could be lower, but it probably WILL be in 5 mos. In 3 mos? Maybe.

Do you have other risk factors? B/c 160 is only 10 points from 150 (what Dr. Esselstyn says you should shoot for) and I would be suprised that your doctor was pushing statins except for the fact that doctors are pushed to push statins by the drug companies. Read some of these (esp. how statins don't save lives in most cases):

http://www.drmcdougall.com/med_hot_cholesterol.html

My known risk factors are high cholesterol when eating SAD, and cardio history on father's side. My father's had two bypass surgeries and recently a stent, one of his brothers died of heart-attack in his 40s, and the other brother has had issues as well.

How did/do those people eat? I don't give a BIT of concern to the fact that my grandfather died at 43--he ate SAD in a big way.

Fact is that no one can make this decision but you--not me, not your doctor. Just you. Do the reading--the pages to which I directed you will give you a start--and keep in mind that a few years ago the # at which doctors started Rxing statins was lowered JUST SO THE DRUG COS COULD MAKE MORE $$ (I think there's an article about that on the page to which I linked). There is very little evidence that in most cases statins actually save lives.

SAD, of course.


Of course - I'm not asking for anyone to do that for me, just looking for feedback based on experience. And, I understand completely where you stand - thank you.


I have done the reading, and just re-read some of it again (not to mention Forks Over Knives, The China Study, The Starch Solution, Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease, and The Pleasure Trap). It's not as clear-cut to me as it is to you I suppose. It's apparent that both Esselstyn and McDougall both still prescribe statins in some cases. I'm pretty sure McD wouldn't do it for my case - not sure about Esselstyn.

I seriously doubt any of our nutritional doctors would have you on statins based on your numbers. I too would not even consider them with a TC of 160. Given your risk of a cardiac event vs the risks of statins it's a no brainer for me. You still have some fine tuning that may yet bring it down. Fine tuning is a life long task.
f1jim

Thanks James. I intend to fine-tune and stay drug-free, at least until the next test in 3 months.

Just an update ...

(That is not a typo for the last two triglyceride readings - they were identical). Needless to say, I've very pleased that my TC and LDL are even better than pre-McDougall with statins. Despite the low HDL and borderline triglycerides, I am very hopeful that I am now 'heart-attack proof', and can remain off statins forever. I'm sure I'd get some resistance from my cardiologist at my next yearly checkup, but I think I'll just fire him instead. Over a decade of expensive yearly tests and various cholesterol-lowering drugs, but the only time he mentioned diet was to advise me to read Sugar Busters! I had to find Dr. McDougall all on my own.

There is probably room for improvement. I'm exercising 40m 4 times a week (stationary bike, HR ~120bpm), so I could add an activity to the in-between days. I could do better at a couple of dining-out meals each week (a little oil is getting into me). I'm already limiting fruit, so eliminating my single-serving of liqueur after dinner is probably the only thing that would lower my trigs. But, given how good my TC and LDL numbers are, I'm not sure any of this is worth the bother.

Looks like good progress to me.
f1jim

CONGRATS! Told ya so.

The HDL is not "low." Read Dr. McDougall's article again (I posted it above).

The tris aren't terribly high. I see that you're limiting fruit, but yes, your daily shot of alcohol could do it --fruit and alcohol (as well as simple sugars) will sometimes cause triglyceride spikes in sensitive people.

But absolutely NOTHING to be concerned about and much to be happy about. If your doctor doesn't LOVE those numbers he's not worth the diploma on his wall!

I'm no longer concerned about the HDL, as studies do not show that raising them with drugs has any benefit. That leaves the trigs, which Dr. McDougall classifies as 'borderline but acceptable'. I agree Elizabeth, I have nothing to be concerned about - it's time to stop chasing the numbers!

Thanks Elizabeth and Jim, for the support you give so freely.