Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 51 to 60 of 60

Thread: My total cholesterol went from 146 to 217 in 4 months! page 6

  1. #51
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    Primal Fuel
    So you're saying the lipidologist is lying about the state of the research on cholesterol and lipoproteins because he doesn't throw around study titles for the lay public to go look up on Pubmed? You say there's plenty of research supporting large LDL particles as protective. Apparently there's also research indicating that's the kind of LDL people with familial hypercholesterolemia have, and they are absolutely not protected from atherosclerosis. Their blood is swimming with fluffy LDL particles, and it's all fine and good until it kills them.

    I don't have a reference for that, unfortunately, so I guess it isn't true.
    Last edited by Timthetaco; 10-11-2012 at 10:22 PM.

  2. #52
    Forgotmylastusername's Avatar
    Forgotmylastusername is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    948
    I've wondered about familial hypercholesterolemia and how that fits into the whole picture. To be honest I don't bother much with lipid panels. I just eat a moderate fat/moderate carb clean diet within caloric balance and get regular exercise and sun exposure. I'm sure the science on blood fats and cardiovascular disease is still in it's infancy and is a lot more complicated than we all realize. Their seems to be a lot of bias when it comes to what people believe are the most important aspects.

  3. #53
    Drumroll's Avatar
    Drumroll is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    3,868
    Quote Originally Posted by Forgotmylastusername View Post
    I've wondered about familial hypercholesterolemia and how that fits into the whole picture. To be honest I don't bother much with lipid panels. I just eat a moderate fat/moderate carb clean diet within caloric balance and get regular exercise and sun exposure. I'm sure the science on blood fats and cardiovascular disease is still in it's infancy and is a lot more complicated than we all realize. Their seems to be a lot of bias when it comes to what people believe are the most important aspects.
    Lipid panels tend not to give the whole picture anyway. I think as long as you engage in healthy living, there's no need to worry about your cholesterol level. I mean, if you eat like crap, maybe taking regular tabs on it is a bit more important...

  4. #54
    en2ec's Avatar
    en2ec is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by impala454 View Post
    Were you fasting for this quick test at work? I wouldn't put a lot of emphasis on some health fair test at work. I get a TC number every time I donate blood (every 8 weeks) and it has been all over the place. Here's my past two years worth, with me going primal in May 2011:
    4/21/2011 167
    6/16/2011 122
    8/18/2011 161
    10/19/2011 160
    12/20/2011 162
    2/15/2012 209
    4/19/2012 174
    8/16/2012 163
    Thank you very much for posting your numbers. I didn't realize just how much they can bounce around. That makes me feel better. Cheers!

  5. #55
    en2ec's Avatar
    en2ec is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Vienna, Austria
    Posts
    189
    I hadn't seen the U chart. It is interesting that my TC is now right in the sweet spot for minimizing all-cause mortality (and that my low TC was in the high range for all-cause mortality).

    One of the posters early in the thread mentioned that my testosterone has probably gone up. Although I haven't had it tested (before or after), I am certain that it has.

    The bottom line is that I feel fantastic, and I'm not going to change what I'm doing. I feel healthier than I have in many years, I've lost almost 60 pounds, I have loads more energy, and I feel like I'm reversing the clock and getting younger (well, I was prematurely aged at my previous weight, activity level, and overall health, so now I'm getting back to normal).

  6. #56
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    So you're saying the lipidologist is lying about the state of the research on cholesterol and lipoproteins because he doesn't throw around study titles for the lay public to go look up on Pubmed? You say there's plenty of research supporting large LDL particles as protective. Apparently there's also research indicating that's the kind of LDL people with familial hypercholesterolemia have, and they are absolutely not protected from atherosclerosis. Their blood is swimming with fluffy LDL particles, and it's all fine and good until it kills them.
    I don't have a reference for that, unfortunately, so I guess it isn't true.
    There are a lot lipologists that say a lot of things look at all the CW wisdom that says eat whole grains to improve your cholesterol numbers, myself and others have seen plenty of research to show that is not the case. I am not going to take one podcast (that was very hard to read with all the "like" in it and treat it as gospel.

    Even reading through the bullet points on the page you can see that many of the points he is making are some that I am making too....lol triglicerides etc.

    So you are saying the research is there showing big fluffy LDL is the way to go!
    It seems you are saying that since someone with a genetic disorder that can't regulate their cholesterol (probably with other things going on) means we should all be scared?
    Last edited by Dirlot; 10-12-2012 at 07:07 AM.
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  7. #57
    Timthetaco's Avatar
    Timthetaco Guest
    No, I'm saying that you've already made up your mind on the issue and don't truly care about the state of the research. We don't know if it ends at "Fluffy LDL is good, enjoy the bacon!" All those CW experts aren't up on the research, either, or they wouldn't be parroting old dogma the way you're parroting the newer dogma. Right now we have what appear to be two solid scientists who do have access to the literature and have read it and are saying that at the moment, it seems like LDL-P is a better predictor of risk than particle size. Three, in fact. Chris Masterjohn is on the record saying particle size should be put on the back burner for now.

    The point with FH is simply that those people supposedly have the non-atherogenic, paleo-approved fluffy LDL in their blood in enormous quantities, and they're still at risk for atherosclerosis. Feel free to try to make the case that a TC of 250 is safer than 800, but regardless of the particle size, they have too much damn cholesterol that they're unable to clear from their arteries, which leads to atherosclerosis.

    You're unwilling to accept that researchers might have been wrong about the particle size issue--and I'm open minded in that regard--and my best guess is it's because you're probably pattern A. If you believe that's the final word on heart disease risk, then you would have no reason to worry about any other markers, like LDL-P.

  8. #58
    Daydreamer's Avatar
    Daydreamer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    371
    Most of the lipologists seem to worry more about trig than LDL by the way.
    Young self-caring Paleo-eater from France.
    (So please forgive the strange way I tend to express myself in your beautiful language )

  9. #59
    Dirlot's Avatar
    Dirlot is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Edmonton Canada
    Posts
    2,428
    Quote Originally Posted by Timthetaco View Post
    No, I'm saying that you've already made up your mind on the issue and don't truly care about the state of the research. We don't know if it ends at "Fluffy LDL is good, enjoy the bacon!" All those CW experts aren't up on the research, either, or they wouldn't be parroting old dogma the way you're parroting the newer dogma. Right now we have what appear to be two solid scientists who do have access to the literature and have read it and are saying that at the moment, it seems like LDL-P is a better predictor of risk than particle size. Three, in fact. Chris Masterjohn is on the record saying particle size should be put on the back burner for now.

    The point with FH is simply that those people supposedly have the non-atherogenic, paleo-approved fluffy LDL in their blood in enormous quantities, and they're still at risk for atherosclerosis. Feel free to try to make the case that a TC of 250 is safer than 800, but regardless of the particle size, they have too much damn cholesterol that they're unable to clear from their arteries, which leads to atherosclerosis.

    You're unwilling to accept that researchers might have been wrong about the particle size issue--and I'm open minded in that regard--and my best guess is it's because you're probably pattern A. If you believe that's the final word on heart disease risk, then you would have no reason to worry about any other markers, like LDL-P.
    I don't believe any one marker is the final word and as Daydreamer points out trig are very important as are the ratios. As science progresses there will be even more markers I am sure. Just because they say there are other things going on does not mean low trig patterns and good ratios are not important to look at as you seem to be saying - heck even your docs say we need to aim for low trigs which promotes big fluffy LDL
    Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
    PS
    Don't forget to play!

  10. #60
    Daydreamer's Avatar
    Daydreamer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    371
    I have many many disastrous experiences with conventional "pysicians".
    I have hypopituitarism with an important deficiency in many hormonal levels, testosterone, thyroid, cortisol, IGF-1, insulin, and have problems with SHBG and aromatization of testosterone to estradiol, and all that conventional doctors have done is leaving me in unbearable physical and mental suffering.

    I have to do most of the things that leads me to feeling a bit better on my own and I'm only fucking 19.
    And then they try to make me believe I'm crazy, I'm depressed, I'm anorexic (because I don't eat "like everyone else"), and then everything that's still wrong in my life is psychic.
    When I red tons of scientific texts, books, testimonials on patients forum, and that I understand my condition more than they ever would try to.

    So keep your "reknown lipologists" studies, and treat them as they are : suppositions. And very often, wrong and easy suppositions.

    EDIT : Just a quick add, before going Primal I had low overall cholesterol as I didn't eat saturated fats at all (in fact eating 100 g of fats, but from polyunsaturated fats, mainly almonds, for months, made my testosterone deficiency MUCH WORSE), I had borderline high trig and borderline low HDL.
    Now my TC is 227, yet my trig are 44 and my HDL is 130+
    Last edited by Daydreamer; 10-12-2012 at 08:10 AM.
    Young self-caring Paleo-eater from France.
    (So please forgive the strange way I tend to express myself in your beautiful language )

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Posting Permissions

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