Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Crazy High Cholesterol Reading

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Crazy High Cholesterol Reading

    I am a 32 year old male. 95% paleo/primal. 5'-11", 155-160lbs. Athletic.
    I just got back my cholesterol readings the other day and they were pretty dam high. I'm trying to decipher and educate myself on the readings and it's left my head spinning and felling dizzy. The only conclusion I've come away from thus far is should I even care. It came out a little like this:

    Cholesterol: 8.05 mmol/L (311 mg/dl)
    Triglycerides: 0.48 mmol/L (42.5 mg/dl)
    HDL: 2.55 mmol/L (98.6 mg/dl)
    LDL: 5.28 mmol/L (204 mg/dl)

    I don't even know what to make of all this; one levels is amazing and the another spells doom.
    As a side note; the results were taken after a reasonably heavy sprint/body-weight workout.

    Some ratios:

    LDL:HDL = 2.1
    Tri:HDL = 0.188
    TC:HDL = 3.2

    Again, I don't even know what to make of all this; one ratio tells me all is good, another spells doom.

    Help!

  • #2
    Have you read the primer in my sig?

    Total/HDL: (ideal = 5 or below)

    Trig/HDL: (ideal = 2 or below)

    LDL/HDL: (ideal = 4.3 or below)

    All your ratios are excellent.
    Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

    Griff's cholesterol primer
    5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
    Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
    TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
    bloodorchid is always right

    Comment


    • #3
      Not to worry. You're TC and LDL are not as high as mine. I have familial hypercholestrolenemia, you may also. If you do, statins will not help, they'll make your problems much, much worse. Just go by Griff's fractions and don't think about anything else.
      "When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." - Alston Chase

      Comment


      • #4
        My total and LDL are both higher than yours as of my last test (higher HDL and lower trigs too). No worries here.
        F, 44 years old, 111.8 lbs, 4 feet 11.5 inches (yes, that half inch matters!)

        **1st place sparring, AAU TKD regional qualifier, 2/15/15 - It's damn good to hit like a girl!**

        **First-ever 5K race 11/28/13: 37 minutes, 18+ seconds, no stopping**

        Comment


        • #5
          What are American numbers? Just curious.
          Crohn's, doing SCD

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Knifegill View Post
            What are American numbers? Just curious.
            They're there, in parentheses

            The target range for the trig/hdl range when using mmol/L is <0.9. You've aced it

            I think you're looking good. A young guy like you needs plenty of cholesterol for all that testosterone you use up
            Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

            Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh, see them now. Blind as a bat, I am! Yes, amazing numbers.
              Crohn's, doing SCD

              Comment


              • #8
                Yes that's high.
                I have no idea why anyone would like griffs thread when it has false and misleading information like this.
                "Pattern A is "large and fluffy" and non-atherosclerotic, like a cotton ball. Pattern B is "small and dense" and atherosclerotic, like a BB pellet. You want to have Pattern A."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Total and LDL look a little high.

                  Other levels fantastic.

                  Ratios very good.

                  Certainly not doom - IMO.

                  What does doc say?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by magicmerl View Post

                    Trig/HDL: (ideal = 2 or below)
                    Not for mmol/L : ideal is 0.9 or less as mentioned by Peril

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Apparently people with a very low TRI:HDL ratio like you have very little to worry about. It's funny how many of us are "trying" to believe that the total does not matter, but were a very happy if we fit into the CW scale! This guy can be fun to read. Conventional Cholesterol Tests are Obsolete
                      Some of you may die, but that is a risk I'm willing to take.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Welcome to the club.

                        The pattern of high LDL (-C, -P) of the large and fluffy kind, high HDL, and low trigs seems to be very common among people eating low-carb. Whether this pattern is bad for you or not, nobody knows. There are people who say that LDL (-P) is all that matters (and then this pattern is bad) and there are people who say that the ratios are all that matters (and then this pattern is good). There is no clinical data to decide one way or the other.

                        See e.g. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread81825.html and many other threads like this here.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          news flash for the "large, fluffy, bouyant is no problem" crowd, that's been shown to be bullshit. particle number is the new hot thang.

                          i would say to the OP that while that's on the high side, that's not soaring to new records or anything, not even close. i wouldn't be that worried, but it's tough to say what it means without knowing what you're eating, and your family history with cholesterol.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by EatMoveSleep View Post
                            Not for mmol/L : ideal is 0.9 or less as mentioned by Peril
                            Yeah, I didn't account for the different scales.

                            OP's 0.188 is still well below 0.9.

                            Originally posted by jakey View Post
                            news flash for the "large, fluffy, bouyant is no problem" crowd, that's been shown to be bullshit. particle number is the new hot thang.
                            That's so last year. And not widely accepted science either.

                            The reality is that it's the small oxidised LDL that is the problem. If you have a problem cycling LDL out of your system, then your oxidised LDL will hang around longer, which is bad. So high LDL is suggestive of the presence of oxidised LDL IF the cause is reduced LDL receptor function. It's not suggestive of the presence of oxidised LDL if the reason it's so high is because you're eating a truckload of it.
                            Disclaimer: I eat 'meat and vegetables' ala Primal, although I don't agree with the carb curve. I like Perfect Health Diet and WAPF Lactofermentation a lot.

                            Griff's cholesterol primer
                            5,000 Cal Fat <> 5,000 Cal Carbs
                            Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
                            TQP: I find for me that nutrition is much more important than what I do in the gym.
                            bloodorchid is always right

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Here is what I want to see:

                              Show a study, ANY study, that shows increased risk of heart disease or stroke, correlated with cholesterol, after patients with metabolic syndrome markers have been removed. That is all I want.

                              Ex: Get 1000 people with "high cholesterol", and then eliminate everyone with trigly over a set amount, Hba1c over a certain amount, etc....guess what? They have done this....

                              And you will see that once metabolic syndrome markers have been removed, there is a DECREASE in heart attack and CVA vs the general population.

                              Translation: Blood panels are for determining the presence of absence or metabolic syndrome markers. There a lot of people walking around with supposed high cholesterol with HbA1c's of 4% (indicating prolonged low, non-swinging insulin levels) that are very healthy.

                              When I see any peer-reviewed study that contradicts this, I will change my opinion. Until then, that is all these numbers are good for.
                              "The soul that does not attempt flight; does not notice its chains."

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X