Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : vitamins herbs supplements longevity and aging -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (5995)	8/14/2008 2:51:55 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17090

I don't know what you were eating- but my numbers changed a lot with diet- just in the last year, which I was watching. Since you weren't watching- you wouldn't have any idea what yours did, right? If I hadn't been watching, then my claim of having "regiggered" over the years would make no sense. The first numbers I ever got were in my mid forties, 22 years ago. That's the first physical I ever had. Before that I had only a gynecologist and had to go out and find an internist. I remember him saying my triglycerides were excellent. I had no clue what triglycerides were. He thought my blood pressure was a little high (132/78), though, and to cut out the salt. So I cut out the salt. That was the beginning of my watching. (and do you have a record from 28-47) Interesting that you would have that. My recollection is of an SOP schedule of five-year physicals starting in the forties for healthy people. My first records are five years of periodic B/P checks by the office nurse following that first physical before I had my next physical. B/P normal over that five years. Up until nine years ago, age 56, I didn't have occasion to "watch" my cholesterol because it was never reported to me as other than normal. As a result, I have no records of it. At 56 I scored a 236, ratio 3.8. Went vegetarian and turned into a gym rat. Next cholesterol was 175, ratio 3.07. It was a respectable 207 at age 58, but had reached 294 at age 60, at which point I was put on niacin, which I rejected due to side effects, and subsequently Pravachol, which works fine. Started taking B/P meds just a year and a half ago because I was regularly registering one forty something over ninety something. And my blood glucose hit 100 a year ago and has gone up a dozen since then. So I'm being more strict about the carbs to see how that works. (No way I can drink fruit juice. I keep my daily glycemic load under 15. A glass of juice is nearly that by itself, not to mention more than ten percent of my daily calories.) I think those are pretty good "unmedicated" numbers into my sixties, improved somewhat by some diet an exercise actions I took, impeded by some lapses and actions not taken. I added niacin back in a few months ago on my own trying to get the numbers down enough to get off the the statin. We'll see how that goes. I'm not sure that I'll ever be able to manage any of this without meds. Aging is relentless, seems to me. I expect to be a lot healthier than my birth mother is- she didn't pay attention to her diet until it was too late to really protect her body from some diet induced illnesses. Which is why I made the point I made about the fruit juice. Had I known enough to give it up earlier, I may well have been better off now. But blood glucose was under my radar until very recently. Off to the pool.