Rachel, you're quite right to wait and see what the HDL is, and the triglyceride levels. High total cholesterol in and of itself is not an indicator of heart disease or heart disease RISK as far as that goes.
Since you did a search yesterday, then you've likely already read these articles, the links to which have been posted several times in this forum. But, at the risk of being repetitive, I'll put them here anyway..  - The Cholesterol Myths, by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD. Especially check out item #2. Blood cholesterol has nothing to do with atherosclerosis. "One of the most surprising facts about cholesterol is that there is no relationship between the blood cholesterol level and the degree of atherosclerosis in the vessels. If a high cholesterol really did promote atherosclerosis, then people with a high cholesterol should evidently be more atherosclerotic than people with a low. But it isn´t so ........."
- Ravnskov's comments to the New Cholesterol Guidelines, recently published by the National Cholesterol Education program (May 2001) ... there's a link to the guidelines in Ravnskov's article. "It is not true either, that cholesterol has a strong power to predict the risk of a heart attack in men above 65. In the 30 year follow-up of the Framingham population for instance, high cholesterol was not predictive at all after the age of forty-seven, and those whose cholesterol went down had the highest risk of having a heart attack! To cite the Framingham authors: ”For each 1 mg/dl drop of cholesterol there was an 11 % increase in coronary and total mortality.”
It is not true either, that high cholesterol is a strong, independent predictor for other individuals.
In most studies of women and of patients who already have had a heart attack, high cholesterol has little predictive power, if any at all.
In a large study of Canadian men high cholesterol did not predict a heart attack, not even after 12 years, and in Russia, low, not high cholesterol level, is associated with future heart attacks.
Most interesting is the fact, that in some families with the highest cholesterol levels ever seen in human beings, so-called familial hypercholesterolemia, the individuals do not get a heart attack more often than ordinary people, and they live just as long.".
- THE CHOLESTEROL MYTH, by T.J. Moore. The author goes into a lot of detail about the Framingham study, which is the most often cited in cholesterol vs. heart disease discussions. He points out that the study showed that yes, people with high cholesterol got heart disease. But what usually gets omitted from arguments is that the study showed that people with LOW cholesterol also got heart disease, and at the SAME RATE. " ... Cholesterol, however, is far from being a simple and universal explanation for what causes coronary heart disease. For example, high blood-cholesterol levels generally do not increase the risk of coronary heart disease among women. ...... The link between high blood-cholesterol levels and increased risk of coronary heart disease in both men and women weakened at about age fifty and then disappeared entirely."
- THE CHOLESTEROL MYTH by Barry Groves, author of Eat Fat, Get Thin! " ... But there are a number of significant points that the cholesterol theory overlooks. For example, there is a marked difference between the build-up found in those with familial hypercholesterolaemia and those with coronary heart disease: hypercholesterolaemia causes large deposits at the mouths of the coronary arteries, often leaving the arteries themselves unblocked, and so does not reproduce the type of obstruction found in coronary heart disease ..... It has also long been known that simple events, such as putting a cuff around the arm prior to taking a blood sample, or fear of the needle, can result in raised cholesterol values. And, even where these are avoided, large fluctuations are known with peak to nadir variations of as much as twenty-three percent. Lastly, cholesterol is only one of the constituents of an atheroma and, if you think about it, cholesterol is so necessary and so widespread in the body, it would have been surprising if it had not been found."
Page 2 of this article is a very worthwhile read, on the myths of dietary fat and heart disease. Page 3 discusses a few things yer grandma didn't tell you about BRAN, especially wheat bran, and the harm that it can do.
Ah, but Page 8, A Question of Ethics, sums it up nicely " ... Some will say that we do know the cause of coronary heart disease; it is high cholesterol, or too much fat in our diets, or not enough exercise. Or it could be something else. In 1981, two hundred and forty six 'risk factors' for heart disease were listed. That number is now well over three hundred. These so called risk factors include having English as a mother tongue, having a diagonal crease in the left earlobe, not taking siestas, not eating mackerel, snoring and wearing tight underpants. What a list of this size really tells us is that we have little idea what causes coronary heart disease. And it is certain that if all the 300 plus do play a part, we have no chance of defeating the disease." ...........
Cholesterol testing
Imagine it is 2.00 a.m., you are lying in bed when you hear a noise downstairs that you know is caused by a burglar. You know how quickly your heart starts to race. Well, that is how quickly your cholesterol level can rise - and for the same reason. One of the effects of the 'fight or flight' reflex is to raise blood cholesterol. Any form of physical or mental stress has this effect. So if you run to your doctor's, your cholesterol level will be higher than if you walked; if you have been standing it will be higher than if you sat. If you are anxious, or your doctor looks worried, it will be higher. If your blood cholesterol were tested hourly throughout a day, or daily over a month, it would not be unusual to find a wide variation in values.
Blood cholesterol levels also rise naturally as you get older so that while a reading of 9 mmol/l is high at the age of twenty, it is perfectly normal if you are fifty.
Cholesterol measurements are not very accurate - less than eighty percent - even when conducted in a laboratory. A survey showed that on the same sample, laboratories could differ by as much as 1.3 mmol/l. When it is tested with a doctor's desktop machine the accuracy will inevitably be lower.
To put it in perspective, let us assume that you are around thirty years old and your cholesterol level is a perfectly respectable 6.0 mmol/l. You hurry to the surgery and are anxious about the result. This could raise it by twenty-five percent to 7.5. If it is sent to a laboratory giving the high readings it could be raised by a further 1.3. Your perfectly normal 6.0 is now a high 8.8!
In fact, so many variables affect cholesterol levels that a one-off test is a waste of time, and an unnecessary worry for the patient that can do more harm than good. Bear that in mind if you are subjected to a cholesterol test."
Ok, there's a lot of opinion expressed in that last article, but it's well-researched opinion (that's likely why his website is called Second Opinions ). Some very good reading there too about the perils of vegetarianism as well.
In DANDR, Atkins also discusses cholesterol at length in chapter 15, Good Protection for Your Heart. On pp. 186 - 189, he lists some nutritional supplements you might consider as well.
If you can get your hands on Protein Power Lifeplan, by the Drs. Eades, pub. 2000 ... chapter 4, Cholesterol: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly ... pp 86 - 109, explains it perfectly. And also explains how an increased total cholesterol, combined with a decreased triglyceride level is actually cause for celebration. They differ from Atkins a bit on the use of supplements, especially antioxidants, which they claim are a double-edged sword.
Phew, lots of reading!!! Lots of typing too, I think I'm going to rest for a bit... 
Take care of yourself, and don't worry too much. It's like scale phobia ... sometimes the numbers don't tell the whole picture, especially since you've been feeling well and fit otherwise.
{{hugs}}
Doreen
|