Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40

Thread: Yet another cholesterol thread page 3

  1. #21
    peril's Avatar
    peril is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    2,679
    Quote Originally Posted by jjmattpa View Post
    Yes very low carb. broccoli, zucchini, cauliflower primarily. regular table salt. Would 328 scare you regarding heart?
    No. But you need to understand why your blood pressure is so low. After all, it's causing real symptoms

    Sent from mobile
    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

  2. #22
    howardroark's Avatar
    howardroark is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by NewOldGuy View Post
    Well, your new numbers indicate better health and less disease risk than these do, with the great HDL:TG ratio. But you still need to get the particle counts by size to know the whole picture, and a CRP level if possible. A higher total LDL-C doesn't mean anything good or bad by itself. The mortality correlation data in the link posted above does not mean causation. I would recommend reading one of the several good books out on cholesterol myths and more recent science. Either "Cholesterol Clarity" by Jimmy Moore, or "The Great Cholesterol Myth" cowritten by Steven Sinatra if you prefer one actually by a cardiologist. Moore's book has the most cutting edge data as the book is more recent.
    I'll definitely check those books out. And like I said, I will buy an NMR out of pocket, probably in about a month or so. That should give us a better picture of the particle sizes/counts. Do you have any studies that show the HDL:TG ratio as being a good indicator of CVD risk? I thought the LDL-P was the best indicator for risk.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

  3. #23
    NewOldGuy's Avatar
    NewOldGuy is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by howardroark View Post
    I'll definitely check those books out. And like I said, I will buy an NMR out of pocket, probably in about a month or so. That should give us a better picture of the particle sizes/counts. Do you have any studies that show the HDL:TG ratio as being a good indicator of CVD risk? I thought the LDL-P was the best indicator for risk.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk
    When you have high HDL relative to TG, ideally more than 1:1 (as yours is now) that indicates good insulin sensitivity and almost always means that your LDL is mostly the large type A particles, the harmless kind. That will also be reflected in a lower particle count because you have more of the large transport particles. You have enough HDL to keep the type B stuff cleaned out. And lower TG also means lower type B LDL.

    The ratio is usually referred to as the triglyceride to HDL ratio (not the other way around), and it's now considered one of the best predictors of MI risk. People with TG lower than HDL don't have heart attacks. You can find lots of stuff on Google, even from conservative sources like the American Heart Association. The two books I mentioned will give more, and I think Mark even talks about it in Primal Blueprint.
    Last edited by NewOldGuy; 10-21-2013 at 07:18 AM. Reason: sig

  4. #24
    howardroark's Avatar
    howardroark is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by NewOldGuy View Post
    When you have high HDL relative to TG, ideally more than 1:1 (as yours is now) that indicates good insulin sensitivity and almost always means that your LDL is mostly the large type A particles, the harmless kind. That will also be reflected in a lower particle count because you have more of the large transport particles. You have enough HDL to keep the type B stuff cleaned out. And lower TG also means lower type B LDL.

    The ratio is usually referred to as the triglyceride to HDL ratio (not the other way around), and it's now considered one of the best predictors of MI risk. People with TG lower than HDL don't have heart attacks. You can find lots of stuff on Google, even from conservative sources like the American Heart Association. The two books I mentioned will give more, and I think Mark even talks about it in Primal Blueprint.
    I did find a study related to this topic:
    http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/96/8/2520.long

    Pretty interesting stuff. Any other big ones?

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    peril's Avatar
    peril is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    2,679
    The biggest study comparing markers of CVD was INTERHEART, which found the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio to be the best predictor. The lower the better. Much simpler and more reliable than VAP or NMR

    Sent from mobile
    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

  6. #26
    NewOldGuy's Avatar
    NewOldGuy is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    The biggest study comparing markers of CVD was INTERHEART, which found the ApoB/ApoA1 ratio to be the best predictor. The lower the better. Much simpler and more reliable than VAP or NMR

    Sent from mobile
    Some of the big conclusions of Interheart were wrong, and simply restated and reinforced the old cholesterol hypothesis (myth) of Ancel Keys. You should look further. It's a fact that just reducing LDL-C (which usually lowers that ratio you mention) has no correlation to reduced risk of heart attack, and no study has ever shown such a correlation. But raising HDL (which also lowers that ratio) is proven to reduce the risk of heart attack.
    Last edited by NewOldGuy; 10-21-2013 at 07:18 AM. Reason: sig

  7. #27
    howardroark's Avatar
    howardroark is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by NewOldGuy View Post
    Some of the big conclusions of Interheart were wrong, and simply restated and reinforced the old cholesterol hypothesis (myth) of Ancel Keys. You should look further. It's a fact that just reducing LDL-C (which usually lowers that ratio you mention) has no correlation to reduced risk of heart attack, and no study has ever shown such a correlation. But raising HDL (which also lowers that ratio) is proven to reduce the risk of heart attack.
    NewOldGuy, I think peril may be onto something here:
    Although very high plasma HDL-C and very large HDL particles are associated with increased risk in the present study, our data showed apoA-I to remain protective across the major part of its distribution. Most importantly, apoA-I did not exhibit a switch toward a positive relationship at higher levels. This may support apoA-I as an active component of HDL particles, possibly defining the atheroprotective capacity of this lipoprotein fraction. Indeed, several experimental studies have pointed to a crucial role for apoA-I in protection against atherosclerosis (22 and 23).
    High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, High-Density Lipoprotein Particle Size, and Apolipoprotein A-I: Significance for Cardiovascular Risk: The IDEAL and EPIC-Norfolk Studies

  8. #28
    peril's Avatar
    peril is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Sydney, NSW
    Posts
    2,679
    Quote Originally Posted by NewOldGuy View Post
    Some of the big conclusions of Interheart were wrong, and simply restated and reinforced the old cholesterol hypothesis (myth) of Ancel Keys. You should look further. It's a fact that just reducing LDL-C (which usually lowers that ratio you mention) has no correlation to reduced risk of heart attack, and no study has ever shown such a correlation. But raising HDL (which also lowers that ratio) is proven to reduce the risk of heart attack.
    ApoB correlates with LDL-P, not LDL-C, whether measured or calculated. I reduced my ApoB/ApoA1 ratio into the safe band while markedly increasing my LDL-C. Of course I increased my HDL-C to get there. Nothing novel there

    Where is your evidence of fault with Interheart?

    BTW, we're both doing the same thing. I've been drug free since early 2010, following a MI in mid 2009. Let's learn from each other. Like you, I tried high dose Niacin, getting HDL-C up to 3.2mmol/L before dropping it and letting it slide back to current 2.2mmol/L with diet alone. Lots of things to try, mistakes to make and lessons to learn
    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

  9. #29
    NewOldGuy's Avatar
    NewOldGuy is offline Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Woodstock, GA
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    ApoB correlates with LDL-P, not LDL-C, whether measured or calculated. I reduced my ApoB/ApoA1 ratio into the safe band while markedly increasing my LDL-C. Of course I increased my HDL-C to get there. Nothing novel there

    Where is your evidence of fault with Interheart?

    BTW, we're both doing the same thing. I've been drug free since early 2010, following a MI in mid 2009. Let's learn from each other. Like you, I tried high dose Niacin, getting HDL-C up to 3.2mmol/L before dropping it and letting it slide back to current 2.2mmol/L with diet alone. Lots of things to try, mistakes to make and lessons to learn
    Thanks for the info, and I'll watch your threads too. I have some comments about Interheart but no time now, but it does look like the ApoB/ApoA1 is a good marker. It's not one I've tested for on myself.

  10. #30
    howardroark's Avatar
    howardroark is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    36
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by peril View Post
    ApoB correlates with LDL-P, not LDL-C, whether measured or calculated. I reduced my ApoB/ApoA1 ratio into the safe band while markedly increasing my LDL-C. Of course I increased my HDL-C to get there. Nothing novel there

    Where is your evidence of fault with Interheart?

    BTW, we're both doing the same thing. I've been drug free since early 2010, following a MI in mid 2009. Let's learn from each other. Like you, I tried high dose Niacin, getting HDL-C up to 3.2mmol/L before dropping it and letting it slide back to current 2.2mmol/L with diet alone. Lots of things to try, mistakes to make and lessons to learn
    I looked at DirectLabs and didn't see a test with both ApoB and ApoA1 measured. Do you know which tests your doctor normally orders? I would be paying out of pocket, so that's why I am looking at DirectLabs.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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