46f7fc24a213b038ab3f0a97c73a5441
0

LDL maintaining high while HDL increase and Triglycerides drop

by (5)
Updated about 17 hours ago
Created September 12, 2013 at 2:25 AM

I have been paleo for about 2 years now. Over this time period I have had regular blood panels and one of the trends I have noticed is that although my HDLs have gone up and my Triglycerides have dropped my LDLs remain mostly stationary and my total cholesterol is pretty stable as well.

Though I am not fearful, I feel great and in general I feel my numbers are trending favorably I would like to know if anyone else has noticed this or has some advice on how to lower my LDLs. As a side note my Potassium seems to be a bit high - I eat a ton of spinach, kale, ruffage greens, and occasionally a skinless sweet potato. Should I worry?

My diet is pretty low carb, most days I would say I am below 50 grams and on workout (powerlifting/HIIT) I stay closer to 100 (2 bananas post workout, or a sweet potato)

Here are my numbers:

2008 2013

TC 211 207

HDL 43 57

LDL 140 140

TriGs 141 49

TC/HDL 4.9 3.6

K 4.5 5.4

The night before the test I did something really stupid and let temptation get the best of me, I ate some pizza! (master, I failed you) Though I still fasted for 12 hours prior to the test. I have also started IF about a month ago.

Medium avatar
208 · September 12, 2013 at 4:41 AM

I find that I totally believe the Cholesterol con theory 100% and yet in the back of my mind I still think about the numbers. They have done such a good marketing job and have billions at stake in selling us drugs, so they retain a high power to intimidate. When I have doubts I think about all the low fat high sugar stuff I ate long ago to lose weight, which never worked.

46f7fc24a213b038ab3f0a97c73a5441
5 · September 12, 2013 at 4:08 AM

I'm somewhere in the middle still between believer and complete rejector of the "villainization" of cholesterol. My doctors tell me my numbers are high due to high LDL and Total Cholesterol but I am not too worried about it, they have suggested I go on a statin and if I weren't as informed as I am I probably would be on one right now. That being said I roughly follow Chris Kresser's guidelines for monitoring my numbers, I check out great on his 4 main philosophies so not too worried but not ready to completely disregard all previous research as well.

46f7fc24a213b038ab3f0a97c73a5441
5 · September 12, 2013 at 3:53 AM

Right on! I had actually found that same article a few minutes ago. Looks like the Iranian method is beneficial when TriGs are <100. Unfortunately my family does have a history of heart problems, though admittedly probably from lifestyle - smoking, excessive drinking, eating a terrible diet, late nights, low activity levels- of which I do not partake in; however my lipids are something I monitor and obsess about sometimes.

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb
4458 · September 12, 2013 at 3:45 AM

no probs. there is a theory that the Iranian formula is the more accurate/realistic (?) formula of the two when trigs are low. As it refs on that calculator page...'the "Iranian" formula used above can perhaps give a better "estimation" of LDL when our Triglycerides are nice and low' & on pubmed here, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426324

46f7fc24a213b038ab3f0a97c73a5441
5 · September 12, 2013 at 3:40 AM

Thank you for the response, I wasn't even aware that different methods of calculating LDLs were used. This definitely opens up a new can of worms for me to research. I appreciate the link you posted and the seemingly good news as well!

  • Total Views
    774
  • Recent Activity
    A9590f19f2c150d5cbaeac2745443046
  • Last Activity
    441D AGO
  • Followers
    3

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

3 Answers

best answer

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb
0
4458 · September 12, 2013 at 3:31 AM

Your LDL number is actually calculated (not measured) in both of your results, using the Friedewald formula. I just confirmed this using an online calculator (link below).

If you use the Iranian formula (instead of your Friedewald formula), then your calculated LDL number dropped from 174 (2008) to 110 (2013).

As i say, these are just calculated LDL numbers, the lab has not actually measured your LDL (more expensive to do that).

Here is the link to the calculator that uses both the formulas mentioned,

http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~geoff36/LDL_mg.htm

543a65b3004bf5a51974fbdd60d666bb
4458 · September 12, 2013 at 3:45 AM

no probs. there is a theory that the Iranian formula is the more accurate/realistic (?) formula of the two when trigs are low. As it refs on that calculator page...'the "Iranian" formula used above can perhaps give a better "estimation" of LDL when our Triglycerides are nice and low' & on pubmed here, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426324

46f7fc24a213b038ab3f0a97c73a5441
5 · September 12, 2013 at 3:40 AM

Thank you for the response, I wasn't even aware that different methods of calculating LDLs were used. This definitely opens up a new can of worms for me to research. I appreciate the link you posted and the seemingly good news as well!

A9590f19f2c150d5cbaeac2745443046
0
30 · September 12, 2013 at 10:21 PM

A few thoughts.

  1. I have similar numbers than you have. Going Paleo dropped the Trig, increased LDL (also because I know exercise much more, including the Big Five regimen from Doug McGuff)
  2. According the Chris Masterjohn, cholesterol measurements does vary by a pretty good margin day by day. So best would be to test a few times in a month and make an average.
  3. I am in two mind regarding the cholesterol con. I tend to be dismissive of the cholesterol impact. I see my mum being fairly overweight, have a bad lipid profile and no CVD at all. On the other hand my dad has pretty good died but had a triple bypass and calcified heart valve at 75, he also had a MI at 58. I think genetic is HEAVILY involved in CVD - my 23andme is telling me that I have a few LDLR genes not quiet "optimum". So I am thinking that I can only try to makes things a bit better by following a diet high in fruit and vegs, proper meat and fats (not too much) and do sport. But in the end I believe the genes win!

Medium avatar
0
208 · September 12, 2013 at 4:00 AM

Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, Uffe Ravnskov and many other doctors/authors have laid waste to the Cholesterol theory. It seems that the information can't break through the entrenched propaganda to follow your numbers no matter where they lead.

I'd do some reading before getting hung up on the numbers.

Medium avatar
208 · September 12, 2013 at 4:41 AM

I find that I totally believe the Cholesterol con theory 100% and yet in the back of my mind I still think about the numbers. They have done such a good marketing job and have billions at stake in selling us drugs, so they retain a high power to intimidate. When I have doubts I think about all the low fat high sugar stuff I ate long ago to lose weight, which never worked.

46f7fc24a213b038ab3f0a97c73a5441
5 · September 12, 2013 at 4:08 AM

I'm somewhere in the middle still between believer and complete rejector of the "villainization" of cholesterol. My doctors tell me my numbers are high due to high LDL and Total Cholesterol but I am not too worried about it, they have suggested I go on a statin and if I weren't as informed as I am I probably would be on one right now. That being said I roughly follow Chris Kresser's guidelines for monitoring my numbers, I check out great on his 4 main philosophies so not too worried but not ready to completely disregard all previous research as well.

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account

Get Free Paleo Recipes