Hi. Dennis here. Just running some numbers by more experienced members. I have been doing a very low carb program for just at 6 months now. I've lost 85 pounds to date.

In comparing my blood tests today with Nov. 14th blood tests I saw some differences. My LDL has risen from 111 back in Nov. to 127 now. I think I have read here on the forums that high fat / low carb eating will lead to higher numbers in the short run but for most people they tend to lower over time -- is that correct? I also have read that rapid weight loss can lead to incresed LDL numbers. How long should I expect these high numbers or is this abnormal? My non LDL Chol went from 141 to 146. Vldl went from 30 to 19. Whatever CA is it went up a bit (from a 8.3 to a 8.8) NA went from 138 to 141.

My AST / SGOT was low -- 8 back in Nov. but has risen to 10 now. The way I read this is low numbers can indicate magnesium deficiency. Is that correct? My trigylicerides dropped from 149 to 95 in that time. My vldl dropped from 30 to 19 -- Is this the good collestrerol? My chol / Hdl ration went from 4.44 to 4.24 which is still high I guess but better.

My fasting glocose was flagged as low at 73 but I started back Intermittent fasting so I'm not worried. (Better than my Nov. 14th reading of 171) My A1C went up a bit -- In march it was a 4.9 and today it was a 5.1 but I did have surgury in the middle of April.

As I said any advice or observations would be appreciated. This can be rather confusing.

Thanks

Dennis

Your fasting glucose was flagged as LOW? Rather ironic, no? and in six months! These numbers look fine. A 16 point rise in LDL could just be a function of the formula now having lower Trigs, and 127 is not high anyway. Whatever, many doctors would not advise having tests until weight has been stable for 6 weeks. After losing 85 pounds! In six months! anything could have shown up. Most important are the lower Trigs...very good news there. VLDL mostly transports those Trigs and good news those are lower.
What is your HDL? .That is the so-called "good" cholesterol and the only component of the formula that can be measured in addition to the total.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-know...mpletely-wrong/

CA calcium and NA sodium barely moved, and its concentration can just reflect how hydrated or dehydrated you are. Even when mildly out of range, it is not a big deal for LC. Low liver enzymes are good news, did you read somewhere it could be related to magnesium? IDK, don't see any info about below range being an issue, only above.

Thanks for the quick response Janet -- my HDL went from a 41 to a 45 so still a little on the low side but at least going in the right direction.

On the form I have they say LDL should be between 0-100. So I shouldn't worry too much at this point? I'll check in another 6 months -- Thanks again.

HDL below 32 I think is considered low. It will rise slowly if you:

a) Eat plenty of saturated fat
b) Don't smoke
c) Exercise a little
d) Don't drink too much (not sure if that's true, going from memory!)

VLDL is bad, so having it go down is very good.

It can take a long, long time for HDL to rise, so be patient.

Thanks Nancy -- I'm doing all those things on the list so I'm doing all I can for now.

I just don't want to be put on a statin drug if I can help it.

Hopefully this will help you feel better about your lab results. Here is a chart of what mine have done over the past 2 years...



Everything was going well, then my LDL went through the roof on my last test. The doctor had me retested and the results were more or less the same. Currently, I'm doing an N=1 experiment to see if I can bring that number down. I was really pushing the diet and exercise in the months prior to that last test. I was eating 1800 calories a day, walking 20 miles a week and losing fat at the rate of 9 pounds a month. I suspect that the extra LDL was coming from my own fat. My experiment is that I've increased my daily calories by about 500 - mostly from fat and protein. I want to slow my rate of loss down. My daily saturated fat intake has gone from around 50g to 70g per day - which is, I'm sure, not what the doctor would have me do. But if my LDL goes down, then at least I've proven that it is not the saturated fat in my food that was raising the LDL. I get retested at the end of June. I hope this little experiment goes well.

Your good cholesterol is "good" and getting better. Continue eating low carb and add some exercise, and it will continue to improve though slowly. Your Trig/HDL ratio is very good already, and under 100 LDL range is out of date and supposedly no longer the focus of even theAHA guidelines, but no doctor or lab has seemed to take notice. Learn more about Cholesterol and statins in the forum below this one. The choice to take or not any pharmaceutical is yours.

Thanks Ken, Janet, and Nancy. That info really helps me relax a bit.

By the way Ken -- keep us informed on what you find out about the rapid rise in LDL. It would interesting to see if indeed it was the rapid weight loss that is the reason.

I will. When I first found out that my LDL had gone crazy high, I did a lot of web searching to see if I could figure out what was going on. I'd read that weight loss alone can cause numbers to go all over the place and that being weight stable for at least 4 weeks will provide a much clearer picture of what your long-term numbers really are. I'd read that a healing fatty liver will increase LDL (I had liver inflamation). I read that people with eating disorders (anorexia and bulimia) can have very high LDL.

I also found many forum posts where alarmed people posted a similarly high LDL result looking for answers. Unfortunately, most were newbies and they never provided a followup to let people know if they figured out what was going on. I did notice one thing that many of them had in common. They were pushing hard with the diet and exercise. It occured to me that I had been doing that in the months prior to my last labs. I broke my foot in December and that put an end to my regular walking routine. So I really cut down on the eating to keep the weight loss coming. As my foot healed, I got back into my walking routine - exceeding 20+ miles walking per week by the time March rolled around -- but I had kept my eating the same (1700 to 1800 calories and < 30 net carbs). Last June - when my cholesterol numbers were very much better -- I was eating closer to 3000 calories a day and walking just a couple of miles a week. I thought that maybe I was pushing too hard. That is why I formulated a plan to back off a bit and slow the weight loss some. I still walk 20 to 25 miles per week, but I eat a lot more now. In June, I'll eat just a bit more to slow the weight loss even more. At the end of June, I will be retested. If my LDL is down -- and I suspect that it will be, then I will be satisfied that it was the hard-pressed weight loss that was behind the craziness.

As alarming as that number may appear, I'm not convinced that it is dangerous. I've always thought the cholesterol thing was some sort of a scam. Now - even 30 years later, you don't hear about any statistics that tout cholesterol lowering drugs as life savers. All you hear about is how they have been proven to lower those choloesterol numbers. With so many people taking these drugs for so many years, you'd think that they'd have hard evidence by now that these drugs actually do some good. If these drugs actually do help prevent heart disease, that is. I suspect that there is no evidence because these drugs don't do squat in preventing heart disease.

Me losing 170 pound with this WOE, me walking regularly and me not eating sugar & starch is me doing the best things I can be doing to prevent a heart attack. But I know if I don't get that LDL number down, my Doc will likely recommend statins. I won't take them, but I hope it never becomes an issue. If my experiment works, I should be able to show my doctor that it is the weight loss and that we just need to see this through to the end.

I had my cholesterol labs done again last week, so I'm here for the followup I promised. I wrote a pretty thorough entry in my journal about it - so rather than repeat it -- here is a link to that page in my journal...

Ken's Journal - Page 51 - See June 19 entry

If you google "cholesterol and saturated fat myths", Dr. Mercola has a very good article. I don't do cholesterol test, just because from everything I read, they aren't beneficial...Just my opinion though.... Below is another realated link.....

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/ti...saturated-fats/

Very timely posts from Ken and Whited, as I just had an NMR Lipid panel done with the normal CBC and other standard tests.

From 6 months ago, my LDL-C went from 111 to 161.

In the most recent tests my HDL is 63 while my Triglycerides came in at 62. Total cholesterol was 236, which I ignore completely. However, in the NMR Lipid panel, they do a CVD risk score taking into account Small LDL-P and LDL Size. I was <90 on LDL-P, which is off the scale on the lowest risk. I was 21.1 on size which means I have large fluffy LDL and it too is on the low risk portion of the scale.

They also did an LP-IR score which indicates my tendency toward Insulin Resistance, and my score was <25 which is off the scale on the Insulin Sensitive side, which is what I'm trying to achieve with IF and my ketogenic WOE.

So, taking all this into account, I felt pretty good until my GP focused on the LDL-C increase from the last test and suggested I should consider a statin. No way I'm even considering statins. In response to the test and specifically regarding the LDL results, I've been doing some research and found that there is still some confusion and no agreement on LDL blood volumes in general. The following is a short video by Dr. Hallberg on this very topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_SjcnR3Us

Bottom line, I too have started to see if I can keep my HDL increases steady and try to reduce LDL over the next 6 months. One of the ways I'll approach this is to limit or eliminate dairy (I mostly consume butter and HWC, but sometimes eat cheese) by cutting back or out of my daily HWC in coffee.

I'm almost at the point where I'm questioning the need to continue lipid testing, as my numbers where there appears to be some kind of medical agreement are good, and the gray area (LDL implications) is something that may even be a health improvement for me. So, I'm on a quest to learn more about LDL markers and what to expect when one is on a LCHFKD WOE.

GRB, your lipid panel and the NMR is so perfect, a 1:1 Trig:HDL being Optimal, I can't believe you or your doctor is giving the LDL a second thought!

Doesn't any doctor read the new cholesterol guidelines? ...


"LDL (bad) cholesterol
A low LDL cholesterol level is considered good for your heart health. However, your LDL number should no longer be the main factor in guiding treatment to prevent heart attack and stroke, according to new guidelines from the American Heart Association. For patients taking statins, the guidelines say they no longer need to get LDL cholesterol levels down to a specific target number. "

Statin makers might be catching more users with that crazy Risk Assessment tool, but LDL is not supposed to be the guiding factor anymore!

The guideline recommends statin therapy for the following groups:

People without cardiovascular disease who are 40 to 75 years old and have a 7.5 percent or higher risk for having a heart attack or stroke within 10 years.
People with a history of a cardiovascular event (heart attack, stroke, stable or unstable angina, peripheral artery disease, transient ischemic attack, or coronary or other arterial revascularization).
People 21 and older who have a very high level of bad cholesterol (190 mg/dL or higher).
People with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes who are 40 to 75 years old.


You are a healthy weight, exercise, and have OPTIMAL levels of the cholesterol components that matter...the LDL-C formula is off base anyway when Trigs are below 100. (Remember, it is ONE formula, with FOUR variables, ONLY TWO of which are Measured. http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-know...mpletely-wrong/). This is the article you should read on your quest for cholesterol knowledge

You should indeed feel great about all those results..Relax and have some HWC.

Ken, thank you for your interesting posting. The questions you pose reminded me of an article of May 14th 2010, from a Dutch quality magazine, which might give us some answers in this matter. A lot of the information we have already known for years (the article being 5 years old). Still, I’ll sort of translate the whole article in case you or anybody else find(s) it interesting. At the end of the article cholesterol is mentioned and the effect of fats and of light products on the body. In case anybody is interested in the original Dutch article,you'll find the link underneath.

The title was:
'The dangers of eating too little'. The question was posed:
'But what exactly are those dangers'?
Apart from tiredness, moodiness or lack of concentration, too strict diets can lead to more serious problems. In fact, the body starts to break down muscle tissue to provide energy. This leads to less strength, which makes you tired. The metabolism is slowed down by 20 to 30% (!). The body economizes. That's why people slow down losing weight, after wich they eat even less. This becomes a vicious circle in an attempt to continue losing weight.
Waste products.
A lot of waste products remain in your body, due to a.o. the breaking down of muscle tissue. This can lead to headaches or nausiness. The pancreas will go into a slower ‘mode’ with an ever slower metabolism as a result. Less food results into less moisture inside your body, because of which one can dehydrate, which, as a result, can lead to kidney failure.
(The lists continues):
Deficit of iron can lead to anemia.
Too much waste products and too little moisture can lead to a surplus of water retention.
A lack of fibre can lead to bowel-issues and problems in the bathroom.
A lack of vitamins can lead to dry hair, brittle nails and losing hair.
A lack of calcium and vitamine D can lead to bone mass reduction.
Too low a blood pressure can lead to cardiac arrhythmia or a cardiac arrest for that matter. One of the signs of low blood pressure, as we all know, is dizyness whilst standing up.
In the long run one can cause less well functioning organs because of these deficits.
Risks
There are people who don’t believe in crash diets but totally abandon fat instead. Fat has the reputation of being fattening so even people who are not on a crash diet, tend to eliminate fats. Of course, fat contains a lot of calories (joules) but too little fat is not healthy either.
Too little fat can cause following problems:
a deficit of fat-soluble vitamines A, D, E and K. These vitamins are important for a good functioning body.
Depression.
Especially the omega fatty acids play a major part in keeping up spirits and not becoming moody. If you eat too little of these, the body produces not enough hormones that make you happy (I suppose they are talking about endorfines).
Cardiovascular diseases caused by too high cholesterol levels. This sounds odd but when you hardly eat any fat, your HDL (good cholesterol) level gets down whereas the LDL (bad cholesterol) becomes disproportionally high. And this can cause blood clots and clogged arteries.
The nutrients are getting out of balance. If you eat too little, your intake of carbs rises disproportionally high. Too many carbs can lead to more appetite and hunger because the blood sugar level will be higher, which could eventually lead to diabetes. Too much protein is a burden on your liver and kidneys and could also lead to bone mass destruction.
More appetite. Fat makes a meal tasty and fills you up. If you only choose light products (non fat products) you’ll be hungrier. Furthermore, in those products fat has usually been replaced by a lot of sugar! Too much sugar rapidly leads to a high blood sugar level after which it tumbles down again with a lot of hunger as a result.

Source: Elsevier's Magazine of May 14, 2015
http://www.elsevier.nl/Algemeen/nie...LSEVIER265688W/