mine are fine.
I've read a lot of posts about people freaking out when their cholesterol numbers go up after eating primal for a while. I know many argue this is not necessarily bad. But that's beside the point here. I'm just wondering if anyone has NOT had their cholesterol go up significantly since eating primal for a while.
I'm due for a cholesterol test soon. I've not had one since eating primal. My total cholesterol was 170-something before, good ratios. I had a dream last night I got tested and it had jumped to 349! LOL
Ok, despite what people say is good or bad, I would not feel comfortable with it that high! I hope it won't be!
mine are fine.
I am shooting for 500.....just kidding
Last labs I had was in college (well post grad)....dunno the results (we were required to undergo it to examine our own results but I forget)
BTW I have a chiropractor as a family physician. But, I myself have only had labs as a college course (never antibiotics or meds....actually neither have my children and they stilll live!).....hey I'm only 34 so why should I? ...IMO good numbers = Eat Primal or bad numbers = Eat Primal....eat right, move right, think right.
Last edited by Neckhammer; 10-14-2012 at 01:04 AM.
Mine came down to "normal" levels, according to my doctor, with a better overall profile. He wouldn't give me the numbers, though :-/
It may not be Primal eating that's doing this. I admit that my experience is purely anecdotal, but it's worth considering for others whose bodies may react the same way.
I am hypothyroid, and my endo checks me every 4 months and includes a lipid panel (because the hypo can elevate LDL).
A while back, I fell for all the hype about coconut oil, and replaced my EVOO with a good quality, organic CO. By coincidence, I made the switch right after one of my check ups. Four months later, my LDL was UP by 50 points. My endo casually asked me whether I'd made any dietary changes, and I immediately thought of the CO because it was the ONLY change I'd made. He told me to eliminate it to see if that was the problem. I went back to my EVOO--and 4 months later, my LDL was DOWN those 50 points.
Since that time, I've had no other issues with my LDL, so IMO it was obviously the CO. I doubt that I'm the only one who reacts this way to it, but most people probably don't have the frequent check ups that I do so that they can so easily isolate the culprit.
Lest you argue that this may have been the "good" type of LDL, my cardiologist says that's a misnomer. Yes, the Pattern A is better than Pattern B, but all LDL is best controlled within acceptable limits.
Lots of cholesterol threads have people who say their cholesterol went down. It's not uncommon. I have not had mine tested for many years so I can't share anything about myself.
Female, 5'3", 49, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135 (more or less).
Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 162.5 x 2
If you believe plaque deposition is a gradient driven process dependent on LDL-P only, you may tend to ignore LDL-C. However, simple logic and arithmetic say LDL-C is a critically important factor. Since plaque is mostly cholesterol, it stands to reason that you want your LDL-C to be low no matter what your LDL-P is. If your LDL-P is low, say in the 1000-1200 range, you will have fewer collisions with the artery wall and fewer LDL particles getting stuck. However, what good does it do to have half as many LDL particles getting stuck if they each have twice as much cholesterol?
Last edited by Artbuc; 10-14-2012 at 06:56 AM.
I would strongly recommend reading through Peter Attia's 9-part series on cholesterol (he summarized it in his 2-part series for Mark). In addition, I disagree with Artbuc's statement. "Since plaque is mostly cholesterol, it stands to reason that you want your LDL-C to be low no matter what your LDL-P is."
Looking at the study attached here, pay attention to the numbers in the table in the upper right - lower LDL was correlated (not causation, but associated with) higher numbers of patients presenting for cardiac problems.
I want nice high HDL, low trigs, and LDL to be pattern A. The only reason I care about that last item is that the current evidence indicates it is particle number which correlates with CVD, and since volume is a cubic, large particles will have more per-particle content, and thus my given amount of content will occur in fewer particles.
Beyond that, my health and performance continue to improve, and listening to my body has kept me alive a dozen years longer than would otherwise have happened. That requires real honesty to keep from wishful thinking - but there are signs I look for (energy levels, stress response to my job, fingernail quality, etc.).