Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: My cholesterol has gotten worst?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3

    My cholesterol has gotten worst?

    Help,
    I have been eating Primal since March. I have lost 22 pounds. I am a female I am 5' 2" and weigh 110 and my body fat is 12%.
    All the meat I eat is 100% grass fed and finished I eat high quality wild salmon at least 2x a week and tons of vegetables. There is absolutely no grains in my diet. I do eat sweet potatoes on hard lifting days and cycling interval training days. I take a high quality omega 3 supplement. I look and feel great.

    My question is why have my cholesterol lab values gotten worst? Here are the before Paleo and during Paleo results: I am a 36 years old female.
    BEFORE: AFTER
    Cholesterol 159. 229
    Triglycerides 65. 57
    HDL 59. 67
    Cholesterol/HDL 2.69. 3.42
    LDL calculated 87. 151
    LDL/HDL 1.47. 2.25

    Any Helpful comments would be great
    Thanks,
    Amy

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    145
    Hey guys, everything is like it should be, what am i doing wrong?"

    Also female, bf12%... probably not.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    9,490
    Looks pretty good to me. Cholesterol is elevated while your losing weight in many instances. See where it is after you have hit ideal weight and remain stable for several months before testing again.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    344
    The straight dope on cholesterol

    The series is up to part 9, but it's it's worth wading through. The only cholesterol value that correlates well - note that I said correlates not causes - cardiovascular disease is particle count. There is much more evidence that arterial disease (the clogging thing) is actually caused by an underlying inflammation, and the cholesterol may be there as part of the body's repair process. That is not yet proven - so don't assume I just gave you gospel.

    I personally want my total cholesterol somewhere between 200 and 240 - because that's the range that correlates with the lowest all-cause mortality.

    BTW - you know where the greatest concentration of cholesterol in the body may be found? In the brain - it's loaded with the stuff. I am not going to starve my brain of a vital constituent.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,951
    First, they used the Friedewald formula to calculate your LDL, and it doesn't work when your Trigs are that low. When your Trigs are low, then you have the large, fluffy particles (good thing) and you can't use the same formula as the guy with Trigs in the 300s because his are small, dense particles (not a good thing - the kind that build up in your arteries). They take up less space.

    Using the Iranian formula, you get LDL of 123.

    But regardless, you are female, and the numbers that work for men do not work for you. In men, there's a sweet spot where their total cholesterol levels are just right, not too high and not too low. It's a U-shaped curve with an optimal number in the middle.

    Not so much for women. We have a straight line, and higher total cholesterol is actually associated with less risk of keeling over. Lower total cholesterol and you up the risk. The study showing that is here. Your Trigs are good, and that's actually a better predictor of heart issues.

    Oh, and here's the link to an alternate LDL calculator. That shows both the Friedewald and Iranian calculations.

    I'm definitely not an expert, but I'm sure someone will chime in with a lot information.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by RitaRose View Post
    First, they used the Friedewald formula to calculate your LDL, and it doesn't work when your Trigs are that low. When your Trigs are low, then you have the large, fluffy particles (good thing) and you can't use the same formula as the guy with Trigs in the 300s because his are small, dense particles (not a good thing - the kind that build up in your arteries). They take up less space.

    Using the Iranian formula, you get LDL of 123.

    But regardless, you are female, and the numbers that work for men do not work for you. In men, there's a sweet spot where their total cholesterol levels are just right, not too high and not too low. It's a U-shaped curve with an optimal number in the middle.

    Not so much for women. We have a straight line, and higher total cholesterol is actually associated with less risk of keeling over. Lower total cholesterol and you up the risk. The study showing that is here. Your Trigs are good, and that's actually a better predictor of heart issues.

    Oh, and here's the link to an alternate LDL calculator. That shows both the Friedewald and Iranian calculations.

    I'm definitely not an expert, but I'm sure someone will chime in with a lot information.
    Are you sure that large fluffy LDL's are ok while small dense ones are harmful? Dr Dayspring and a couple other well known lipidologists say LDL size is not a CVD risk factor, just LDL-P.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Artbuc View Post
    Are you sure that large fluffy LDL's are ok while small dense ones are harmful? Dr Dayspring and a couple other well known lipidologists say LDL size is not a CVD risk factor, just LDL-P.
    Supposedly the large fluffy particles don't stick to the artery walls as easily as the small ones which .

    Again, not a scientist, but that has been the consensus unless something has come up very recently that I hadn't heard.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    344
    Quote Originally Posted by RitaRose View Post
    Supposedly the large fluffy particles don't stick to the artery walls as easily as the small ones which .

    Again, not a scientist, but that has been the consensus unless something has come up very recently that I hadn't heard.
    Peter Attia's series addresses this - but the section that addresses i directly the most is in here:

    The straight dope on cholesterol

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Annlee View Post
    Peter Attia's series addresses this - but the section that addresses i directly the most is in here:

    The straight dope on cholesterol
    So, from how I read, he's saying it's a matter of the oods being higher because the number of particles is higher? I might agree with that, but I still think the makeup of the particles (which is different for small, dense and large, bouyant) makes a difference. They're going to act differently.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    179
    You should have a new blood test done and ask for an APO-B test. As the other poster noted, particle count is a better indicator of risk. My TC and LDL also went up over the last few years. I didn't have a recent test before changing the way I eat so primal eating may not be a factor at all. Dr Dayspring indicates that a small number of people are hyper-responders to cholesterol consumption, but that is quite rare.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •