Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chris Masterjohn on Cholesterol

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
    "It's called math."

    Hey wise guy, I would wager I have forgotten more about math than you will ever know. If you read my post, you would understand my point that HDL-C is very difficult to change whereas TC can be changed dramatically with statins.

    "Never was mentioned 5 is better than 3."

    Griff's primer, which is what I referred to, says 5 is "ideal". Masterjohn says 3 should be the target. I am just guessing here, but if Chris Masterjohn thought 5 was better than 3 he probably would have said so. My question remains, does 3 represent a lower risk of CVD than 5? If yes, I would say 5 is NOT ideal.
    HDL is not difficult to increase. Increased consumption of saturated fats will drive up both HDL and TC, with a reduction in the TC/HDL ratio. (LDL will also increase and TG decrease markedly if reducing carbs but the HDL increase will more than cancel the influence of the LDL increase on the ratio). As a maths savant I'm sure you can work this out.

    Low TC is associated with increased death from cancer, increased mental illness, increased injury and death from violence, ... It is also associated with chronic infection - see Paul Jaminet's blog for more on this
    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


    • #17
      Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
      I said I am guessing my TC is up because I have dramatically increased dietary saturated fat. My assumption is, based on the experiences of others, that my TC is up disproportionately compared to my HDL-C, ie my TC/HDL-C ratio is now quite possibly much higher than 5. Now, if 5 really is ideal as Griff says, maybe no problem. But it I should be shooting for 3, I am concerned.
      I have been Primal over a year, I eat fish, grass fed meat, vegetables, I cook with butter, coconut oil and lard. I eat a three egg cheese omelette every morning with 2 pieces of bacon. I don't have per-primal numbers but my recent test had
      TC 172.9
      Tri 57
      HDL 78
      LDL 83 Framingham
      LDL 66 Iranian
      Low Tri High HDL, my numbers are good even by CW standards and my TC/HDL-C = 2.2

      If you are worried get tested.
      Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
      PS
      Don't forget to play!

      Comment


      • #18
        I have the same lipid pattern as Jimmy Moore: high TC (304), high HDL (95), high LDL (209), high LDL-P (in my cape, apo-B was tested which correlates well with LDL-P), and very low triglycerides (23). All my ratios indicate I'm at the very lowest risk, but my apo-B of 163 says I'm at very high risk! Dr. Dayspring has gotten me a bit freaked out, and the wildly divergent numbers have me quite confused. I started taking kelp tablets (iodine) to boost my thyroid function - the minimal thyroid testing I had was normal, but I think I may have a mild subclinical hypothyroidism. I'm going to eventually get an NMR test. There seem to be quite a lot of people in the paleo community with very similar lipid profile - I'm looking forward to more solid information about it. It seems to be a rapidly evolving science with lots of disagreement.
        My blog: Pretty Good Paleo
        On Twitter: @NEKLocalvore

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Annika View Post
          I have the same lipid pattern as Jimmy Moore: high TC (304), high HDL (95), high LDL (209), high LDL-P (in my cape, apo-B was tested which correlates well with LDL-P), and very low triglycerides (23). All my ratios indicate I'm at the very lowest risk, but my apo-B of 163 says I'm at very high risk! Dr. Dayspring has gotten me a bit freaked out, and the wildly divergent numbers have me quite confused. I started taking kelp tablets (iodine) to boost my thyroid function - the minimal thyroid testing I had was normal, but I think I may have a mild subclinical hypothyroidism. I'm going to eventually get an NMR test. There seem to be quite a lot of people in the paleo community with very similar lipid profile - I'm looking forward to more solid information about it. It seems to be a rapidly evolving science with lots of disagreement.
          If you supplement with iodine, make sure you also take the right amount of selenium. Masterjohn and Kresser talk about this.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by peril View Post
            As a maths savant I'm sure you can work this out.
            I appreciate your help but this comment was uncalled for. My " math" comment was a response to an incredibly condescending remark from another poster.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Dirlot View Post
              I have been Primal over a year, I eat fish, grass fed meat, vegetables, I cook with butter, coconut oil and lard. I eat a three egg cheese omelette every morning with 2 pieces of bacon. I don't have per-primal numbers but my recent test had
              TC 172.9
              Tri 57
              HDL 78
              LDL 83 Framingham
              LDL 66 Iranian
              Low Tri High HDL, my numbers are good even by CW standards and my TC/HDL-C = 2.2

              If you are worried get tested.
              There is so much confusing/conflicting info out there I don't know if I should be worried or not. Sifting through everything, I tend to believe Chris Masterjohn has the best theory. Unfortunately, there is not much we can do to increase LDL receptor activity. We can up regulate thyroid with supplements which may help some people. We can take statins which do increase receptor activity but have bad side effects. We can reduce oxidative stress with lifestyle changes. We can eat healthy foods which contain broad-based anti-oxidants like grass fed organ meats and eggs. I am not going to waste my money on a standard lipid panel because I do not believe the cholesterol numbers mean much of anything. Also, I agree with Masterjohn that LDL particle count and particle size tests are not sufficiently developed/standardized and it is not clear that either measurement adds much predictive value. I do believe high blood sugar is a major source of oxidative stress and I have eliminated that problem by going to a VLC, medium protein diet. Before I made the diet changes, I would guess my BG shot up above 200 after my carb heavy breakfast and stayed around 200 pretty much all day long. I now never let my 1 hour postprandials exceed 135-140. My weight is ideal and I have a vigorous exercise program. I am doing everything I can do except take statins which I am not going to do. My goal is to die healthy.
              Last edited by Artbuc; 11-12-2012, 03:07 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by magicmerl View Post
                Right, so for the corner cases of people on 'extreme' diets, I don't think that the science is definitive with regards to discordant LDL-C and LDL-P. Peter Attia definitely thinks that LDL-P is the cause, but I am still agnostic. Given the underlying mechanism (small particles passing through the arterial wall that would normally not be able to fit between the gaps if they are normally sized, or large and puffy) I think that it's premature to write off small LDL particle size as being a factor in CVD.

                And LDL particle size is definitely something we know we can influence, by decreasing our Trig/HDL ratio.

                .
                I wasn't writing particle size off as useless. Just pointing out it isn't as set in stone as some people have made it out to be. Some people (not referring to you) tend to pick and choose when it comes to what they believe is the most important parts of lipid panels if it fits their diet bias. I've even heard large particle size being referred to as "non anthropogenic" which just isn't correct.

                Comment

                Working...
                X