Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Support Our Content
    eNewsletter
    Donate

This process is horrible.


nickibeaks

Recommended Posts

nickibeaks Rookie

Just so frustrated today. I had two different blood tests over the past month from different companies while re introducing gluten, DHP IgG positive and TTG IgA positive on the second.

still had to wait for my biopsy because it’s arbitrarily important in diagnosis, fine. I asked if we could do a capsule endoscopy instead because I have extreme tenderness in my lower abdomen as well as the appendix area, and I have had a negative colonoscopy before because that isn’t where any of my pain is. No, insurance requires the endoscopy.

Well 250 dollars later for a test I knew was useless... my endoscopy was today and they come in saying, “congrats it all looks fine! We will see what the biopsies say in a week” I can’t start the capsule endoscopy until those results come back so I get to keep eating gluten and feeling like s$#&.

the lack of sensitivity on the part of doctors to the fact that to people with an chronic undiagnosed illness “congrats we found nothing” is actually super frustrating and disheartening news, especially when two positive blood tests logically seems like enough info to work with already.

its just not a great day today.


Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



cyclinglady Grand Master

Older scopes can not see any damage visually.  I got the same message that “everything looks great” until the pathologist’s report came in showing severe damage.  

nickibeaks Rookie

Oh interesting!! 
 

ive been doing more reading today, and every study I find about people who are symptomatic with potential celiac end up having symptom relief on a gluten free diet anyway, so that seems like good justification to just take that route if they are negative. For once my google frenzy was actually stress relief ?
 

they’ll be doing a camera scope if the results are negative, which will look at the part of my intestines that actually hurts, so that might give some answers too.

docaz Collaborator

Unfortunately, even if the intestinal mucosa looks fine on endoscopy, it does not mean that it looks fine under microscopy (because otherwise, there would be no point in examining under microscopy).

The other aspect that is a little controversial is that the biopsy is the "gold standard". I know leading clinicians who are on both side of the opinion spectrum.

One clinician at the University of Chicago feels that if tTG is positive, that's enough to diagnose celiac disease because even if nothing shows up on the biopsy, the bood test are specific and sensitive enough that he would still recommend a gluten-free diet because he feels that it is just a matter of time until the changes in the intestine will happen. 

On the other hand an equally reputable clinician also at the U of C and one at the Mayo clinic feel that the biopsy is important but what is interesting that they also agree that even in a situation with a negative biopsy they would recommend a gluten-free diet. 

Jeff Adams wrote just reported a few days ago on this site the fact in some areas the guidelines for biopsies in children are changing to the effect that many biopsies will not be performed anymore because their contribution to the diagnosis is questionable and if it justifies the risk and the expense for the biopsy. Here is the link: 

 

Based on what I read, it appears that the blood tests are much more often used to diagnose and it appears that it is very uncommon and might not happen at all that there is a positive biopsy (not just any inflammation but a specific inflammation with a increase of neutrophils in the wall of the intestine that is diagnostic for celiac disease) and a negative blood test. I would not be surprised at all if the guidelines for diagnosing adults will also change and in some situations, biopsies will not be recommended anymore. 

cyclinglady Grand Master
31 minutes ago, docaz said:

Unfortunately, even if the intestinal mucosa looks fine on endoscopy, it does not mean that it looks fine under microscopy (because otherwise, there would be no point in examining under microscopy).

The other aspect that is a little controversial is that the biopsy is the "gold standard". I know leading clinicians who are on both side of the opinion spectrum.

One clinician at the University of Chicago feels that if tTG is positive, that's enough to diagnose celiac disease because even if nothing shows up on the biopsy, the bood test are specific and sensitive enough that he would still recommend a gluten-free diet because he feels that it is just a matter of time until the changes in the intestine will happen. 

On the other hand an equally reputable clinician also at the U of C and one at the Mayo clinic feel that the biopsy is important but what is interesting that they also agree that even in a situation with a negative biopsy they would recommend a gluten-free diet. 

Jeff Adams wrote just reported a few days ago on this site the fact in some areas the guidelines for biopsies in children are changing to the effect that many biopsies will not be performed anymore because their contribution to the diagnosis is questionable and if it justifies the risk and the expense for the biopsy. Here is the link: 

 

Based on what I read, it appears that the blood tests are much more often used to diagnose and it appears that it is very uncommon and might not happen at all that there is a positive biopsy (not just any inflammation but a specific inflammation with a increase of neutrophils in the wall of the intestine that is diagnostic for celiac disease) and a negative blood test. I would not be surprised at all if the guidelines for diagnosing adults will also change and in some situations, biopsies will not be recommended anymore. 

While your points are valid, I suspect that saving money has a bit to do with it too.  

The new guidance, published in the Journal of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, could save millions of euros in direct healthcare costs each year as biopsies on children, and the required general anaesthetic to perform them, cost around €1,000 per patient.”

https://www.healtheuropa.eu/coeliac-disease-are-biopsies-needed-for-childhood-diagnoses/97438/

docaz Collaborator
1 hour ago, cyclinglady said:

While your points are valid, I suspect that saving money has a bit to do with it too.  

The new guidance, published in the Journal of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, could save millions of euros in direct healthcare costs each year as biopsies on children, and the required general anaesthetic to perform them, cost around €1,000 per patient.”

https://www.healtheuropa.eu/coeliac-disease-are-biopsies-needed-for-childhood-diagnoses/97438/

I do not think that saving money is a bad thing.

If the primary motive is to save money and endanger someone's health that would be a problem but if something makes scientifically sense and saves money, I think that we should applaud that because it makes healthcare more accessible. 

I remember learning something from one of my teachers during residency something that stuck with me forever: "Do not ask for a test that will not influence your decision of treatment. Not only is it wasteful but it causes possible pain and might involve risks and keep in mind loss of time to the patient." 

I had that experience when my own son and my daughter were both scheduled to have biopsies and I asked our doctor the question how the biopsy would influence the diagnosis and treatment. He thought about it and because my daughter's numbers were so high he decided to cancel that biopsy because she would have had to go on a gluten-free diet regardless what the biopsy would show.  A baseline biopsy would also not be that meaningful because there are so many changes happening with children. I am happy that my daughter did not have to undergo a procedure under general anesthesia regardless what the cost would have been. My son's numbers were just a little above normal and he did have the biopsy. 

 

nickibeaks Rookie
58 minutes ago, docaz said:

I do not think that saving money is a bad thing.

If the primary motive is to save money and endanger someone's health that would be a problem but if something makes scientifically sense and saves money, I think that we should applaud that because it makes healthcare more accessible. 

I remember learning something from one of my teachers during residency something that stuck with me forever: "Do not ask for a test that will not influence your decision of treatment. Not only is it wasteful but it causes possible pain and might involve risks and keep in mind loss of time to the patient." 

I had that experience when my own son and my daughter were both scheduled to have biopsies and I asked our doctor the question how the biopsy would influence the diagnosis and treatment. He thought about it and because my daughter's numbers were so high he decided to cancel that biopsy because she would have had to go on a gluten-free diet regardless what the biopsy would show.  A baseline biopsy would also not be that meaningful because there are so many changes happening with children. I am happy that my daughter did not have to undergo a procedure under general anesthesia regardless what the cost would have been. My son's numbers were just a little above normal and he did have the biopsy. 

 

It’s refreshing that a physician taught that mentality to you! It often feels like doctors are so busy juggling other priorities that patients aren’t really considered very high in the equation even though we are kind of the point of the whole system existing in the first place ?


Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



  • 2 weeks later...
Zenith Explorer
On ‎3‎/‎4‎/‎2020 at 5:01 PM, nickibeaks said:

Just so frustrated today. I had two different blood tests over the past month from different companies while re introducing gluten, DHP IgG positive and TTG IgA positive on the second.

still had to wait for my biopsy because it’s arbitrarily important in diagnosis, fine. I asked if we could do a capsule endoscopy instead because I have extreme tenderness in my lower abdomen as well as the appendix area, and I have had a negative colonoscopy before because that isn’t where any of my pain is. No, insurance requires the endoscopy.

Well 250 dollars later for a test I knew was useless... my endoscopy was today and they come in saying, “congrats it all looks fine! We will see what the biopsies say in a week” I can’t start the capsule endoscopy until those results come back so I get to keep eating gluten and feeling like s$#&.

the lack of sensitivity on the part of doctors to the fact that to people with an chronic undiagnosed illness “congrats we found nothing” is actually super frustrating and disheartening news, especially when two positive blood tests logically seems like enough info to work with already.

its just not a great day today.

Exactly tests are ENOUGH.  I am NOT about to go to any mainstream docs to get a  "proper" diagnosis.  I am my OWN doc. OR I go to N.D. docs but they are kinda worthless too. It is all common sense.   I think I would know if I had a lot of damage to my villi.  I know I have some damage as far as still getting GERD if I jump on a trampoline and I still get some IBS. But I just got glutened two Fridays ago and I think my body is still trying to get over it.  I could NOT go back to eating a bunch of bread and gluten. I would probably die. I get hardcore stomach pains. I would vomit and everything else.   My  Natural path doc found my celiacs by luck through the saliva hormone panel test in 2017. End of story, that is all I needed. Well for two years later anyway. I didn't believe her so I kept on eating gluten till NOV 2019.  lol   ' till the symptoms got so bad.

Wheatwacked Veteran

I believe it safe to say that there are no health benefits to eating gluten. The benefit of a celiac diagnosis is that celiac causes a comorbidity with malabsorption syndrome and subsequent vitamin and mineral deficiencies. With diagnosis you know your risk. Unfortunately the medical profession continues to ignore this proven fact. Many mainstream doctors still believe, as they are taught, that gluten-free is a diet preference. It is a "lifestyle choice", as my prostate doctor stated while ignoring that my prostate has shrunk and is no longer an issue since I began a gluten-free diet. He still wants to do a biopsy. Thanks, but no thanks. There are at least 13 different essential vitamins and minerals that the NIH (the people that set the RDA's) recognizes that a celiac diagnosis puts that individual at high risk of deficiency.

According to the Merck Manual:  https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gastrointestinal-disorders/malabsorption-syndromes/celiac-disease

Quote

 

Treatment

  • Gluten-free diet

  • Supplements to replace any serious deficiencies

 

  •  

docaz Collaborator
2 hours ago, Wheatwacked said:

I believe it safe to say that there are no health benefits to eating gluten. The benefit of a celiac diagnosis is that celiac causes a comorbidity with malabsorption syndrome and subsequent vitamin and mineral deficiencies. With diagnosis you know your risk. Unfortunately the medical profession continues to ignore this proven fact. Many mainstream doctors still believe, as they are taught, that gluten-free is a diet preference. It is a "lifestyle choice", as my prostate doctor stated while ignoring that my prostate has shrunk and is no longer an issue since I began a gluten-free diet. He still wants to do a biopsy. Thanks, but no thanks. There are at least 13 different essential vitamins and minerals that the NIH (the people that set the RDA's) recognizes that a celiac diagnosis puts that individual at high risk of deficiency.

According to the Merck Manual:  https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/gastrointestinal-disorders/malabsorption-syndromes/celiac-disease

  •  

It is true that there are no direct benefits to eating gluten an it is true that the awareness of gluten-free diets within the medical profession has lagged behind. This was the case in particular among clinicians who are not directly involved with nutrition such as surgical specialists but that has drastically changed over the last few years. On the other hand there is an opinion that gluten is detrimental for everybody not just people with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity and while there are some loud voices supporting that opinion, this has not been accepted in mainstream medicine in particular because some of the foods (not all)  that are used to substitute gluten are in fact not nutritious and have high caloric content causing obesity. 

 

Wheatwacked Veteran
On 3/18/2020 at 10:26 AM, docaz said:

some of the foods (not all)  that are used to substitute gluten are in fact not nutritious and have high caloric content causing obesity. 

I believe you wish you could have a donut, still addicted, because you appear to be defending wheat. There was a clinical trial: "In 2013, scientists at Careggi University Hospital in Florence decided to see if health markers changed when people switched between eating modern wheat and KAMUT® brand khorasan wheat" .https://wholegrainscouncil.org/blog/2017/12/health-studies-kamut®-wheat-vs-modern-wheat People who are gluten-free even though not celiac and are now obese and sick were likely obese and sick prior to gluten-free. Aside from Celiac Disease there are 200 other symptoms and diseases that show significant improvement on gluten-free. If the food industry must stop using it's most profitable product they will replace it with something else profitable. High fructose corn syrup to replace natural sugars and real fat. And then market as low fat therefore "Heart Healthy". Fat makes you satiated quicker and lasts longer so you eat less. Not enough fat makes you wrinkly?

I watch as family and friends, most not diagnosed with celiac but who are gluten-free stay stable or even get healthier, while those not gluten-free spend more and more on prescriptions and surgeries and multiple illnesses and get constantly sicker. And I perceive my own health as better than I was thirty years ago.

docaz Collaborator
2 hours ago, Wheatwacked said:

I believe you wish you could have a donut, still addicted, because you appear to be defending wheat. There was a clinical trial: "In 2013, scientists at Careggi University Hospital in Florence decided to see if health markers changed when people switched between eating modern wheat and KAMUT® brand khorasan wheat" .https://wholegrainscouncil.org/blog/2017/12/health-studies-kamut®-wheat-vs-modern-wheat People who are gluten-free even though not celiac and are now obese and sick were likely obese and sick prior to gluten-free. Aside from Celiac Disease there are 200 other symptoms and diseases that show significant improvement on gluten-free. If the food industry must stop using it's most profitable product they will replace it with something else profitable. High fructose corn syrup to replace natural sugars and real fat. And then market as low fat therefore "Heart Healthy". Fat makes you satiated quicker and lasts longer so you eat less. Not enough fat makes you wrinkly?

I watch as family and friends, most not diagnosed with celiac but who are gluten-free stay stable or even get healthier, while those not gluten-free spend more and more on prescriptions and surgeries and multiple illnesses and get constantly sicker. And I perceive my own health as better than I was thirty years ago.

This is a completely different discussion if gluten should exist and be consumed by healthy individuals.

The "trial" you quote would never pass a peer review because it is embarrassingly awful. It is riddled with the trademark Kamut and the "independent" study is generously funded guess by who? Twenty people were studied over three  8 weeks periods. Really? There are no inclusion or exclusion criteria. We have no idea if the subjects were healthy, sick, alive etc.. A decrease in cholesterol level by 7% is laughable. Normal total cholesterol levels have a huge range of 125 to 200 and the LDL less than 100 so measly 8% on 10 people (half the total group) is just a joke. There are many more flaws. 

Speaking about profitable, the study was clearly a marketing paper to make "Kamut" profitable. If you change your entire life style based on the results of this study and what you have observed from family and friends that is your choice and I am sure I can not convince you otherwise but the general medical literature does not support this opinion. On the contrary, a gluten-free diet comes with physical, financial and also emotional challenges. I do not share the opinion of a global conspiracy theory.

In the meantime, I am enjoying my donuts because I am not celiac (but two of my children are and fortunately, I was able to greatly enhance their live style based on something that has many studies in peer reviewed international papers). I do not defend wheat because I could care less to defend it and I am not addicted because I can do fine without donuts them but I very much enjoy them. Obviously I do not subscribe to that study and my observation from my family and friends who are doing just fine eating bread on a daily basis because that was the culture I grew up in (in eastern Europe but the grain is the same as here). As mentioned above, I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the gluten industry is using gluten as a profit machine because all the little bakeries next door would not be powerful enough to do that and while the wheat industry might be consolidated and indeed powerful, the end-producers are very fragmented and people just like bread and cakes as they have liked for thousands of years. I realize that there are strong anti-gluten opinions and there are pro-gluten opinions, and this is a difference of opinions that will stay for sure unresolved because proponents of both sides are very passionate.

Wheatwacked Veteran

...And the world wide obesity epidemic is simply gluttony and laziness.

docaz Collaborator
4 hours ago, Wheatwacked said:

...And the world wide obesity epidemic is simply gluttony and laziness.

I do not know the answer to this very complex question. It is much to simplistic to consider it all caused by gluten and wheat growers. 

Refined sugars and more sedentary life style? Maybe

nickibeaks Rookie
4 hours ago, docaz said:

I do not know the answer to this very complex question. It is much to simplistic to consider it all caused by gluten and wheat growers. 

Refined sugars and more sedentary life style? Maybe

 

8 hours ago, Wheatwacked said:

...And the world wide obesity epidemic is simply gluttony and laziness.

There is way more to obesity than personal choice and "laziness" 

it is a symptom of broader disease, and this mischaracterization compounds people's health challenges because of the misconception that people with malnutrition conditions are always frail and thin. They are finding that more people with celiac present as obese than underweight.

knitty kitty Grand Master
(edited)

High caloric malnutrition causes obesity.  The vitamins used to enrich your gluten products are often synthetic and have reduced bioavailability.  There's questions as to the quantity of vitamins added.  The RDA's are set too low.  Subclinical nutritional deficiencies can occur.  Especially thiamine deficiency.  

Thiamine deficiency and obesity:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22116701

Vitamin D deficiency and obesity:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6682882/

Niacin helps regulate fats in obesity...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31343843

And one more for fun....

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4549666/

Hope this helps.

Edited by knitty kitty
Added link

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      127,915
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Nana Lonnie
    Newest Member
    Nana Lonnie
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121k
    • Total Posts
      70.5k

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Jack Common
      Hello! I want to share my situation. I had symptoms like some food intolerance, diarrhea, bloating, belching one year ago. I thought I could have celiac disease so I did the blood tests. The results were ambiguous for me so I saw the doctor and he said I needed to do tests to check whether I had any parasites as well. It turned out I had giardiasis. After treating it my symptoms didn't disappear immediately. And I decided to start a gluten free diet despite my doctor said I didn't have it. After some time symptoms disappeared but that time it wasn't unclear whether I'd had them because of eliminating gluten or that parasite. The symptoms for both are very similar. Giardiasis also damages the small intestine. The only way to check this was to start eating bread again as I thought. Now about my results.   These are my first test results (almost a year ago) when I had symptoms: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 0.5 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 3.0 is normal) The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 6.6 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 3.0 is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.91 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) IgA Endomysial antibody (EMA) - < 1:10 titer (for the lab I did the tests < 1:10 titer is normal) IgG Endomysial antibody (EMA) - < 1:10 titer (for the lab I did the tests < 1:10 titer is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgA - 0.3 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 6.0 is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 46.1 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 6.0 is normal)   Then I didn't eat gluten for six months. Symptoms disappeared. And I started a gluten challenge. Before the challenge I did some tests. My results: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 0.5 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 28 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   During the challenge I ate 6 slices of wheat bread. After the challenge my results are: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.31 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgA - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 2.13 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   To be sure I continued consuming gluten. I ate a lot each day. Two months after I did the tests again. My results I got today are: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 0.7 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.62 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 25.6 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   Nowadays I didn't have any symptoms except tiredness but I think it's just work. I think it was this parasite because two years ago, for example, and before I didn't have these symptoms and I always ate gluten food. But I'm still not sure especially because the Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG results are sometimes high. What do you think? @Scott Adams
    • Jack Common
      My old results (almost a year ago) are: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 0.5 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 3.0 is normal) The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 6.6 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 3.0 is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.91 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) IgA Endomysial antibody (EMA) - < 1:10 titer (for the lab I did the tests < 1:10 titer is normal) IgG Endomysial antibody (EMA) - < 1:10 titer (for the lab I did the tests < 1:10 titer is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgA - 0.3 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 6.0 is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 46.1 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests 0.0 - 6.0 is normal)   Then I didn't eat gluten for six months and after I started a gluten challenge. Before the challenge I did some tests. My results: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 0.5 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 28 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   During the challenge I ate 6 slices of wheat bread. After the challenge my results are: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) The Tissue Transglutaminase IgG antibody - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.31 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgA - 2.0 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 2.13 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   To be sure I continued consuming gluten. I ate a lot each day. Two months after I did the tests again. My results I got today are: The Tissue Transglutaminase IgA antibody - 0.7 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal) Immunoglobulin A - 1.62 g/l (for the lab I did the tests 0.7 to 4 g/l is normal) Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG - 25.6 U/ml (for the lab I did the tests < 20 U/ml is normal)   I didn't have any symptoms now except tiredness but I think it's just work. I'm not IgA deficient as you can see so I don't need to do this Deamidated gliadin peptide IgG test. But I do because it's sometimes not in the normal range. What do you think this time? I think I don't have celiac disease. But this test... 
    • Wheatwacked
      @plumbago, I found a good PDF on cholesterol:  Unlocking the mysteries of VLDL: exploring its production, intracellular trafficking, and metabolism as therapeutic targets I just started it, but it may have answers for us, with whacky cholesterol.  The pharmaceuticals don't seem to be interested in anything but statins.   "The nicotine in tobacco causes a decrease in the HDL cholesterol level. " Maybe you should start smoking? 🤪 I have high LDL and low HDL.  It is genetic mutations in the LDLR, APOB, PCSK9, or LDLRAP1 genes. My whole family is on statins for Familial Hyperliperdemia except me.  December I had ultrasound and cat scan for Carotid Artery blockage and both sides are above 85% blockage.  I started on Atorvastatin and that made me weaker than ever, even with CoQ10.  I asked for and got prescription for 2000 mg/day Nicotinic Acid B3 and in the 3 weeks my numbers changed. I am feeling realy good lately.  Stronger and more flexible.  Sleeping better.  Getting roto router (TCar) as soon as I get clearance from a cardiologist.  I expect that by my next blood panels in April to be even better. I am beginning to believe that like vitamin D where the RDA only accounts for preventing Rickets, the RDA for B3 is way underestimated.   From Oct 22 to Jan 17: A1c from 13.5 to 10.2 eGFR from 55 to 79 Triglyeride from 458 to 362 Total cholesterol from 245 to 264 HDL from 27 to 44 VLDL from 84 to 68 LDL from 134 to 154
    • plumbago
      I have taken thiamine on and off (just not at this exact moment), and I’m not sure it's made any difference. Yes, I almost always “fast” (12 hours NPO) for blood tests, as do a great many other Americans, so I tend to think that’s not it. All I can say is that the mystery continues. I could do some speculating here…well, heck, let me go ahead and speculate now: The lab ranges we all see on our reports are more or less the averages of Americans who have had those blood tests. Now, it’s up to you and me whether or not to think of the average American as healthy. I can make arguments both ways, more often than not, on the negative. My point here is that maybe the current range of HDL is somewhat skewed (ie, low), and maybe just maybe my super high (plus 100s) HDL results are not something to worry about; the range just needs updating. Why do I say this? Because pre-celiac disease diagnosis, my HDL values were in the normal range, but post celiac disease diagnosis, my HDL levels are way above average. See where I’m going? My trusty guidebook on celiac disease, Recognizing Celiac Disease by Cleo Libonati, RN, BSN, says that HDL increases after being on the gluten free diet. Or can increase, I guess. Then again, it could be something else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In thinking of going to a cardiologist, I sort of fear that he/she will be dismissive of a link to celiac disease, treated celiac disease, and would not therefore be considering all possibilities. @trents I'm sorry you've been diligently working on your numbers to no effect. That must be frustrating. LDL is a world that is far better understood than HDL, so for you there's maybe less "mystery." Familial hypercholesterolemia is for sure something that can be tested. Outside of that, you're right, genetics can determine a general pattern.
    • trents
      Well, I have the opposite problem. My LDL has been moderately high for years. I eat healthy and exercise regularly but can't seem to move that meter. I used to be on a statin (and my doctors want me to go back on one) and it brought both HDL and LDL down but the ratios never changed. I think a lot of that cholesterol stuff is just baked into the genes.
×
×
  • Create New...