Low-carb diet tied to higher cholesterol page

[Jesse]

I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to put together a rebuttal to this article. I'm having a hard time finding the actual research and I'm really not skilled in looking through research papers. There are definitely some red flags for me in the article, but family members are forwarding these over to me as I talk about paleo eating

Low-carb diet tied to higher cholesterol - Health - CBC News

[magicmerl]

I noticed that my cholesterol went up slightly on primal. My HDL went up, my LDL went up, my trigs went way down.

Please read through the Cholesterol primer.

The thing is, that's not necessarily a bad thing. I remember reading a recent study that studied HCLF vs HFLC diets and found that at 6 months through mortality from heart disease was LOWER for the LC group although the risks equalised between the two groups at the two year mark. And the whole point of cholesterol control is to (theoretically) lower the risk from heart disease.

[john_e_turner_ii]

That's the problem with this forum.

If a person comes to PB diet, eats that way for a while, then gets tested and has "normal" cholesterol results, then everyone applauds and says "Good for you".

If another person starts PB and has "high" cholesterol results, everyone says "Those numbers are great! Cholesterol is really meaningless."

So, which is it?

[magicmerl]

Well, I do think that the 'conventional' way of evaluating cholesterol has several really screwed up points. e.g. HDL is the 'good' cholesterol. And if the only change to your cholesterol had been an increase to you HDL, that would be good, right? But for some reason there is a 'total' cholesterol target as well (which included HDL), and if you go over the recommended level, satan kills a kitten.

Secondly, some LDLs are bad. But not all LDL is bad. The most common test don't even measure LDL directly, but infers it from the other values. So I wouldn't recommend having a panic attack if your test results aren't giving you good information to panic about.

As griff says in his second post, the things that matter are the cholesterol ratios.

[magicmerl]

Also, that article has apparently conflicting information:

"Body mass index increased continuously over the course of the study" + "For the individual standing on the bathroom scale an increase in blood cholesterol may be overlooked, because it will only be detected by measurements at a medical centre."
What's it going to be? Either people are losing weight on this diet or they aren't. There are two possible alternatives here:

1. HFLC diets don't work
2. People start on HFLC diets and then revert to a more conventional diet

The article is trying to imply that (1) is the case. But I suspect that actually it is (2), particularly since the study notes that over the time period they increased their consumption of rice, pasta, whole grain soft bread, Wine and beer. Those hardly sound like 'low carb' foods, and if a significant chunk of the population was actually going low carb, then the rest of the people must have dramatically increased their intake of those foods to create an overall increase.

[Knifegill]

Depends on which studies you believe!

My numbers have improved since I started this. Currently, after a year of getting most of my calories from saturated fat from animals and coconut, this is my cholesterol profile:

Total - 263 (exactly in the lowest mortality zone)
Triglyceride - 45 (beat that!)
HDL - 94 (I'm heart disease-proof according to some information)
LDL direct - 138 (Could it be any lower?! And they didn't test for particle size )

My CRP was 1.3, and I got sick the next day so that's probably artificially elevated.

My numbers from years ago (2008), living on grains -
Triglycerides - 52 (Uh-oh. Little high for fasted!)
Total Chol - 200
HDL - 58 (So low! Sadness!)
LDL - 132

Vast improvement. High-fat somewhat low-carb for a year.

[codered5]

Ok, well two things:

1. The wording of the article seems to suggest that the diet was used as a weight loss diet and after the subjects lost weight they went back to their normal way of eating...so they lost weight, but raised their cholesterol and went back to eating crap with the raised cholesterol. So yeah, that's a "duh" not good moment.

2. Our understanding of cholesterol is only developing. Cholesterol is the building block for all of your hormones, so in theory, if you had healthy ratios of hdl/ldl, vldl/ldl, trigs, etc. and had higher cholesterol, your body COULD be more efficient at producing hormones, meaning a high cholesterol level with those great ratios could actual mean you're healthier.

The "diet" may increase your cholesterol, but that's not an issue unless you reintroduce the foods that cause all the inflammation for the cholesterol to stick to. Debunked!

[icz]

I don't know; i have concerns as well. While I ahave been 30 pounds overweight my whole adult life, my cholesterol has always been good -- below 200 with high good chol & low bad. Triglycerides are great. I don't need them to change, but I used to only eat meat a few times a week. . . So eating bacon etc, just gives me pause.

[Chaohinon]

Without even opening that link, I'm betting they're talking about hotdogs-n-cream cheese low-carb, not paleo/primal low-carb.

[pklopp]

There is nothing to rebut.

It is well known that increasing dietary fat increases cholesterol levels. All else being equal, when a given individual increases fat consumption, that individual's cholesterol numbers will increase. If you adopt a low carb diet without changing your overall caloric intake, then you must necessarily increase your intake of proteins or fats, or far more likely, both. In so doing, you will observe the attendant increase in cholesterol levels. This is not controversial, nor does it actually provide any useful information.

The crux of the matter is whether higher cholesterol numbers are actually indicative of anything with respect to health, and Ancel Keys not withstanding, studies show that there is a broad optimal range for cholesterol, and both very low or very high levels are representative of some underlying pathology that will impact on your health. So, what is this optimal range? Well, if your cholesterol levels are between 140 - 280 mg/dl, mortality rates from all causes are relatively flat. If you are lower than 140 mg/dl, or higher than 280 mg/dl, mortality increases sharply. So, if you present me with a study where the average participant's cholesterol levels were increased by 40 mg/dl from 180 to 220 ( say ) with the adoption of a low carbohydrate diet ... color me unimpressed.

But, having said all of that ... you really need to read this paper to realize what a bunch of utter crap it is. I caution you, though, it is a waste of time. Here's the punchline: over the 25 years of the study, there was a steady relative shift from carbohydrate intake to fat among participants, and an overall reduction in serum cholesterol from about 6.5 mmol/L to 5.5 mmol/L. Yes, you read that right, an overall decrease in cholesterol levels. Of course, crank that result through sensationalist media outlets and it becomes "low carbohydrate diets kill."

Nothing to see here ... move along.

-PK