Okay, so I got the blood test results back from my doctor today after a normal check up. He was not very happy about my cholesterol numbers and I've spent the afternoon and evening reading about good numbers, bad numbers and ratios -- but I could use some perspective on this. I've been lc'ing for about 10 weeks now and I did not have blood work done prior to beginning, so I don't really have a benchmark.

So, here are the numbers:

Total = 298
LDL = 195
HDL = 94

He told me the triglycerides, but I somehow missed writing it down. Now, none of these numbers meant much to me, because every other time I've had my cholesterol checked, the doctor basically told me everything looked fine, and so I really didn't think about it much. To get some idea of what that looked like, I did manage to find test results from about 4 years ago that were still sitting in my desk (every other time it's been tested, it's been in the same ballpark -- so it really has shot up from what it's been historically):

Total = 142
LDL = 82
HDL = 56

As I said, the doctor was alarmed by the numbers, but he did concede that my HDL was very good. His alarm was contagious, and I basically came home a little freaked out -- threw out some expensive bacon (though only the package I opened this morning -- the rest I froze) and finally calmed down a little a couple hours ago. I reviewed the supplement suggestions in DANDR about cholesterol, and will pick up some more of the things I'm not getting enough of already with my regular vitamins and minerals. And then I read some stuff about ratios -- and it seems like my ratios look pretty good:

Total to HDL ratio = 3.1702
LDL to HDL ratio = 2.074

How does this look to other people? Thanks in advance -- this whole thing is giving me agita -- and that can't be helping!

hi,

im no expert on cholesterol and those numbers are unfamiliar to me since im from UK but if this doctor is the type to tell you to go on a 'low-fat' diet to improve your health then i wouldnt listen to his nonsense on cholesterol. cholesterol is not the demon it has been advertised as, the thing you really need to worry about is the triglycerides which ironically is the thing you didnt write down

get the triglycerides as low as possible and your cardiovascular health should be ok regardless of the HDL/LDL numbers.

here is an interesting passage from http://www.healingmatters.com



i assume your on a low-carb diet? if so keep it up. whatever your eating try to reduce your polyunsaturated fat intake. (mostly comes from vegetable oils).

lastly , if you really really worried about your cardiovascular health you should consider http://www.energeticnutrition.com/vitalzym-seb.html
its expensive but enzymes are insanely powerful.

Actually, no, he didn't suggest that I go on a low-fat diet -- we both agreed that I should cut back on the processed meat (a conclusion I'd already come to prior to our discussion -- this just reinforced it), but we do differ on coconut oil -- he thinks I should stop that as well, at least for a month and then get re-tested. I don't want to cut back on the CO (and am not planning to at this moment), but I do want get a better understanding of the whole thing, so I can better analyze my diet, etc.

I did call the doctor's office this morning to get my triglyceride number -- it is 43. I'm not sure how that changes the picture, but any insight or ideas would be greatly appreciated!

43 triglyceride's come out as 1.10 mmol/L in UK units of cholesterol, and as far as aware that is quite low so its good.

im sure i read some other people mention its a common known fact that low-carb diets reduce trigs while raising HDL and LDL. believe me youd rather have your LDL high than your trigs

it seems to me as though all your doctor did was look at your LDL part of your cholesterol, freak out at its high number, then make you freak out.

oh yeh and dont give up the coconut oil its fine.

Also, a little perspective: A good number of people have cholesterol (LDL and total) go up when they first start LC, and it can take 3-6 months for it to come back down/stabilize.

Your triglycerides are low and HDL high , and your ratio's are good. For this reason I wouldn't worry, and I wouldn't change anything. If you still are concerned, or can't put your doctor off, at least give it several months before re-testing.

You might want to pick up either Anthony Colpo or Malcolm Kendrick's book (both called "The Great Cholesterol Con"). Both are essentially the same content, Colpo's is drier reading with references to research papers, Kendrick's is funnier and without many references.

When the numbers stabilize, are they usually back down to where before lc, or just lower than the initial high? I ask because mine were considerably lower, and even if they do come down from where they are now, they could still be in a very high range.

I will check out those books, I do feel like I'm gaining a little perspective on this -- though I clearly need to educate myself on this subject -- a couple of friends that I've talked to about this were stumped by the high HDL and low triglycerides, although they were fascinated at how much the numbers shot up. I kind of feel like a little science project.

Oh, and thanks for your response -- it seems like this is a less traveled area of the forum, and I wasn't sure people would see the post.

43 is excellent on the trigs

Your HDL is fantastic, too.

So, would you still be worried about the high LDL?

Hmmm. Iphie, not too much, but I have to admit, I still keep one eye on LDL, as much as I want to have 100% confidence in that it isn't harmful.

Your numbers were solid pre-LC, what sort of eating did you do then? Just curious.

I was a vegetarian for most of my life -- including most of my childhood. But not the sort of vegetarian who eats cheese pizza and cereal and thinks that's healthy -- I've always stayed away from refined foods, even before mainstream awareness of a low-carb diet I avoided refined flour and sugar and anything over-processed in general. So, I ate a lot of fresh produce -- that is still the thing I miss right now -- my veggies! I really have to focus on portion control with them, and it kills me to have to measure out broccoli and asparagus and cauliflower -- but I do. (And I know, there are people here that feel that Atkins allows them to eat lots of vegetables -- and that may be true relative to what they were eating before, but for me, it has been a drastic reduction.)

Anyway, a couple of years ago I was diagnosed with Crohn's. Before I was diagnosed though, I tried to see if my symptoms were caused by anything I was eating. At one point, I decided to spend two weeks eating at the complete opposite end of the spectrum -- a friend of mine was starting Atkins, so I did induction with her. And it did help with many of my symptoms -- although I was nauseous the entire time -- it is not easy doing Atkins as a vegetarian, at least for not for me. (I think in hindsight, it was the additional fat, not necessarily the protein that proved to be helpful.) So, I started adding fish to my diet, and about a year ago started eating poultry -- I was still keeping everything low-fat though. And then a few months ago, I decided to try Atkins again, this time to lose weight -- and this time, I went whole hog! (Literally, I'd never eaten bacon before, and now I know why people like it so much -- still, though, for some reason, it's the only red meat I've eaten.)

Anyway, that's my story, but that's also the reason I do find my cholesterol results troubling -- the drastic change in the way I'm eating corresponds so clearly to such a drastic change in my cholesterol levels.

(And if you've made it this far in my mini-tome, thanks for reading -- I really do appreciate people taking the time to consider and respond to these sorts of intricacies.)

red meat as far as im concerned is an integral part of human diet, just as is fatty fish like salmon/sardines etc.

get some lean mince meat add some herbs and make yourself a juicy burger (no bun ofcourse), then you will really love red meat.

If you feel you're undereating veggies, kick it up a notch! We're all individuals, so you figure out what works best for you.

And, going from vegetarian to Atkins-ite, bumped your cholesterol up, but the good HDL too. You have to decide if you feel the good is protective enough to make the LDL increase viable.

When you eat low carb your "bad" cholesterol becomes big, which is actually good. It's a complicated processes but having lots of triglycerides makes cholesterol small, which is bad. Small cholesterol is the sort that ends up in plaques, the big stuff is too large to be used in creating plaques.

http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com is a great blog to read full of information. He's completely anti-grain, which I think is great. You might find your Crohn's was caused by grains. But he finds a lot of heart disease issues related to wheat.

For a lot of people it comes down to what is low/normal according to the establishment.

That didn't occur to me however, although I am no longer concerned. I know that LC will keep my Triglycerides low and my HDL high, which are the only things that I think "may" even have any bearing on health.

Pre-LC my total was 215, HDL 71, LDL 125 and TG 94.
4 months after starting LC - total 273, HDL 69, LDL 173, TG 153
After another 4 months - total 294, HDL 73, LDL 192, TG 146

Well my doctor was really freaked and wanted me to start taking statins. I refused and wanted to wait to give LC a chance.

After another 4 months - total 276, HDL 92, LDL 163, TG 105
After another 14 months - total 352, HDL 100, LDL 240, TG 62
After another 3 months - total 296, HDL 103, LDL 179, TG 69

Of course my doctor was extremely concerned, but I had become much less concerned. I was curious to know what the make-up of my cholesterol was like (as far as size of particles). So I had an NMR LipoProfile test done. It showed that I had large particle size LDL, although there was still a lot of it. Also large size HDL.

From what I had learned about LDL and heart disease, the smaller LDL particles are more prone to oxidation, and oxidized LDL is implicated in plaque formation. So, if your LDL is large, it is not prone to oxidation, and hence also not involved in plaque formation. Plaques (specifically rupturing of plaques) are what cause heart attacks.

Cholesterol and the lipoproteins that transport them through the blood are required for our bodies. Cholesterol is extremely important, and necessary for all cells. I do not believe that lowering cholesterol is healthy for us.

So, that is my story. I recommend that you research for yourself, as no one else can decide what is best for you.

Thank you, Cathy. It's helpful to see your example over time. I've been doing some reading, but am still waiting for the two Cholesterol Con books from Amazon, as well as the the Kilmer Mccully book (the name escapes me at the moment). As you said, it does seem that the size of the LDL particles is key, so depending on how my next conversation with the doctor goes, I'm thinking of asking that a lipoprofile be done, or possibly a heart scan to see what the actual plaque build-up in my arteries might look like.