Ad Widget

Collapse

LDLC of 8.9 mmol/L. Should I be concerned?

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Artbuc View Post

    I am not suggesting cholesterol causes or is even related to CVD. I am asking you for your personal opinion regarding the cause(s) of CVD and your suggestions on the best way for us to mitigate risk of dying from it.
    The "high" cholesterol markers MAY be a proxy marker for metabolic syndrome, hypothyroidism, adrenal fatigue, acute or chronic inflammation (from new injury, overuse injury, chronic injury or autoimmune disease), or a mineral/vitamin deficiency.

    So my suggestion is the same it was in my original response. Get those things tested. Depending on those results you may actually find something that can be acted on to improve your health. If they come back fine then it is highly likely that your cholesterol runs at the higher end of the normal curve and there is nothing wrong with that.
    Last edited by Neckhammer; 02-03-2017, 09:46 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
      The "high" cholesterol markers MAY be a proxy marker for metabolic syndrome, hypothyroidism, adrenal fatigue, acute or chronic inflammation (from new injury, overuse injury, chronic injury or autoimmune disease), or a mineral/vitamin deficiency.

      So my suggestion is the same it was in my original response. Get those things tested. Depending on those results you may actually find something that can be acted on to improve your health. If they come back fine then it is highly likely that your cholesterol runs at the higher end of the normal curve and there is nothing wrong with that.
      Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
      The "high" cholesterol markers MAY be a proxy marker for metabolic syndrome, hypothyroidism, adrenal fatigue, acute or chronic inflammation (from new injury, overuse injury, chronic injury or autoimmune disease), or a mineral/vitamin deficiency.

      So my suggestion is the same it was in my original response. Get those things tested. Depending on those results you may actually find something that can be acted on to improve your health. If they come back fine then it is highly likely that your cholesterol runs at the higher end of the normal curve and there is nothing wrong with that.
      Please stop talking about cholesterol. I am not asking about cholesterol. I am asking you what you think causes people to develop and die from CVD. Are you saying CVD is caused by metabolic syndrome, hypothyroidism, adrenal fatigue, acute or chronic inflammation or a mineral/vitamin deficiency?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
        Please stop talking about cholesterol. I am not asking about cholesterol. I am asking you what you think causes people to develop and die from CVD. Are you saying CVD is caused by metabolic syndrome, hypothyroidism, adrenal fatigue, acute or chronic inflammation or a mineral/vitamin deficiency?
        In general yes, those are the major driving forces from a clinical standpoint.
        Last edited by Neckhammer; 02-03-2017, 11:53 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          I've posted this before but I firmly believe now that CVD is not related to (or originated from) cholesterol or any other awry lipid panels. I think it has to do with the synergistic relationship between Calcium, Vitamin D3, and Vitamin K2.

          Calcium is regulated in a very narrow range in the blood which leads me to believe it's very difficult to be either calcium deficient or toxic on a blood test. Vitamin D3 we ultimately get from sunlight, but supplements are available for D3, I know I'm taking one right now. D3 pulls calcium in the blood and gets it ready for transport and helps with absorption. K2 is what delivers the calcium to the places it belongs (bones and teeth), but K2 also has another role, removing calcium from places it shouldn't be (arteries, kidney stones, gallstones).

          CVD is essentially the build up of crap in the arteries but ultimately it gets hardened by calcium that shouldn't be there. It's also believed that a large chunk of the population is K2 deficient. K2 comes primarily from fatty sources: Fatty meat, fatty fish, high fat dairy, eggs, cheese, etc.. things we are generally told to avoid. K2 is also found in Natto but that usually isn't an option for people due to the rancid smell and taste. Natto also happens to be the richest source. Some people believe K1 gets converted to K2 in the liver (which probably holds a bit of truth), K1 comes from plants, but then again, all studies showing that conversion have been done on animals which have very different gut flora and enzymes. There is also no way to really test K2 in humans efficiently, so we can't tell if the conversion of K1 to K2 even happens or if it happens at the scale we need it.

          This can be a by-product of a broken metabolism, because if your metabolism is broken, then likely you're vitamin/mineral deficient or out of balance, which means that one is likely lacking K2.

          Here are a few links on it:
          http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...r-disease.aspx
          http://vitamink2.org/?benefit=vitamin-k2-heart-health
          http://vitamink2.org/cardiologists-n...t-bone-health/

          OP, maybe simply adding a K2 supplement to the diet may level out things?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Artbuc View Post

            I would describe Kim as being pro-health as opposed to anti-Paleo. What action, if any, do you suggest OP take to reduce cholesterol?
            I would suggest the majority of people on this forum are pro-health, but it still would be good to know one's position on Mark Sisson's lifestyle and diet choice to put their comments into context. But that's ok. I think in this case, we can read between the lines.

            Anyway, here is an article stating a recent study which apparently shows no correlation (and, in fact, an inverse correlation if anything) between LDLC and heart disease:
            http://www.nhs.uk/news/2016/06June/P...t-disease.aspx

            Yes, admittedly, I am looking for reasons/excuses to continue my lifestyle/diet despite my high LDLC. I did state that I looked and felt amazing since doing paleo with IF. So why would I want to stop unless it was absolutely necessary.
            Last edited by paleoii; 02-03-2017, 03:44 PM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by JBean View Post
              Here's a discussion of just this issue by Thomas Dayspring, MD who is a researcher and clinical lipidologist (i.e. Not just some guy on the internet!!). You can skip down to page 12 for a summary and his recommendations:

              https://www.lecturepad.org/dayspring...icsCase291.pdf
              Yeah, that's an interesting case and discussion.

              The patient's labs in a nutshell go from normal, to very high risk and then back to normal after making modifications.

              Before paleo -> During paleo -> Still paleo but with less fats

              TC: 196 -> 323 -> 178
              LDL-C: 105 -> 230 -> 92
              HDL-C: 75 -> 83 -> 82
              Triglycerides (TG): 78 -> 49 -> 21
              Total LDL-P: n/a -> 2643 -> 948


              The dietary advice was to cut back on saturated fat and use more MUFA and PUFA without increasing carbs. After doing just that for a few months the patient reports: “"The only modifications I've made because of my high lipids are eating steel cut oats regularly, adding chia seeds to my diet, and eating apples regularly (to increase fiber levels); cutting out most dairy; and watching my saturated fat intake a little more closely--all aimed at getting my high LDL-P down." Weight has remained stable.”

              So, no meds, just some simple changes to her diet with such great results. And a complete contradiction to strange statements such as this one:

              Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
              My recommendation would be DO NOT put all your stock in cholesterol levels, even advanced panels. They tell you little and give zero data that is actionable. Steps taken JUST to lower cholesterol are useless at best and usually quite harmful.
              lol
              Last edited by KimLean125byMar15; 02-03-2017, 09:12 PM.
              *Starting Wt - 151 lbs (January 2015) * Current Wt - 113 lbs (November 2016)
              *95% Plant-Based (from June 2015) ~ *75%Carbs *10-15%Protein *10-15%Fat
              *Exercise ~7-10 hrs/week

              Comment


              • #22
                Yes, admittedly, I am looking for reasons/excuses to continue my lifestyle/diet despite my high LDLC. I did state that I looked and felt amazing since doing paleo with IF. So why would I want to stop unless it was absolutely necessary.
                You can find individual studies that do or don't support your beliefs, but you have to look at the method of the study, weigh its conclusions vs. the bulk of remaining studies, think about trial endpoints, etc. That's not impossible for a non-subject matter expert, but it's not easy. Deciding that you can throw away forty or fifty years worth of work for one study of questionable quality that comes to the conclusion that you wanted, though, is probably not advisable.

                However Dr. Dayspring and Mr. Neckhammer share a point. If you aren't going to treat your cholesterol, then don't bother to test it.

                Comment


                • #23
                  This is timely https://chriskresser.com/functional-...h-cholesterol/

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Artbuc View Post
                    Yes, I take a functional approach.....so it's not surprising to see the similarities.

                    The report by Dr. Daysprings is interesting, and he does state repeatedly that there are circumstances for which there is insufficient trials of evidence to make a claim one way or another. One of those instances is low carb/high fat and high lipids with normal labs in all other areas. All we have here is epidemiology.

                    Frankly, if you have the time and capacity to evaluate the current data points and you decide for yourself that you are uncomfortable with elevated ldl panel, then I much rather see someone reduce saturated fat than go on statins. I would highly recommend addressing the factors I already stated first though, as they are more likely to address root cause.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JBean View Post
                      Here's a discussion of just this issue by Thomas Dayspring, MD who is a researcher and clinical lipidologist (i.e. Not just some guy on the internet!!). You can skip down to page 12 for a summary and his recommendations:

                      https://www.lecturepad.org/dayspring...icsCase291.pdf
                      So he says, "Statins are not only among the most effective drugs ever created (have saved more lives than anything but antibiotics and vaccines) but are also among the safest."

                      This contradicts what I have regularly read in low-carb centric literature where other experts claim that statins are among the most dangerous drugs ever created.

                      So which "expert" should I trust in this case?

                      And then we have paleo-critics who advocate consumption of PUFAs for reduction of cholestoral, another no-no in low-carb/paleo circles.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by paleoii View Post

                        So he says, "Statins are not only among the most effective drugs ever created (have saved more lives than anything but antibiotics and vaccines) but are also among the safest."

                        This contradicts what I have regularly read in low-carb centric literature where other experts claim that statins are among the most dangerous drugs ever created.

                        So which "expert" should I trust in this case?

                        And then we have paleo-critics who advocate consumption of PUFAs for reduction of cholestoral, another no-no in low-carb/paleo circles.

                        I believe our differences of opinion are based in how we weight the evidence and our personal health philosophy.

                        Since I know myself best I'll use me as an example

                        Weight of evidence: I very much appreciate a well done RCT with mortality as its end point, however these are quite rare. I am also very skeptical of most drug trials and "science" surrounding their proposed benefits. I'm not a conspiracy theorist.....just a realist....see here
                        http://www.collective-evolution.com/...ture-is-false/
                        So when I wheigh the evidence in diet I do it through an evolutionary lens. I look for heathy traditional societies and epidemiological data that is congruent with proposed biochemical mechanisms. I place those above many RCTs of dubious quality and even more questionable integrity in many instances.

                        Health phylosophy: I believe that in general 90 plus percent of the population not born with an inherent hard wired genetic disorder where born to be vibrant and healthy as long as there is no interference to their innate capacity for health by either excess toxicity or insufficient substrate in physical, mental or chemical form. In other words...think, move, and eat in a matter congruent with your human status and you express health.

                        I certainly disagree with Dr. Dayspring on the safety of statins and their supposed improvement in societal health. The numbers just don't match such claims....as posted earlier.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          As a point of reference, below are total cholesterol averages from modern hunter-gatherers and other peoples that eat traditional diets. TC isn't very useful, but note that these TC values are lower than what many people here report for their LDL-C. The OP's LDL-C (8.9 mmol/l = 344 mg/dl) is triple the TC of some of these tribes.



                          From Eaton SB, Konner M, Shostak M. Stone agers in the fast lane: chronic degenerative diseases in evolutionary perspective. Am J Med. 1988 Apr;84(4):739-49. [Download full paper.]
                          I moved to primalforums.com to escape the spam.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by sharperhawk View Post
                            As a point of reference, below are total cholesterol averages from modern hunter-gatherers and other peoples that eat traditional diets. TC isn't very useful, but note that these TC values are lower than what many people here report for their LDL-C. The OP's LDL-C (8.9 mmol/l = 344 mg/dl) is triple the TC of some of these tribes.

                            From Eaton SB, Konner M, Shostak M. Stone agers in the fast lane: chronic degenerative diseases in evolutionary perspective. Am J Med. 1988 Apr;84(4):739-49. [Download full paper.]
                            Ah, but when I said I look at healthy societies, I look at how they live.....not their cholesterol levels. I don't consider an RCT or an epidemiological study with "cholesterol levels" as end point even remotely useful. Mortality and quality of life are what interest me.

                            Some of those super low values have been attributed to poor collection and storage, some to poor health and parasitic infection, and NONE are due to putting statins in the water supply . Of those tribes with more normal values you must understand that you are still only looking at the mean number, which means there are quite likely some individuals within that society with cholesterol as high as our op. I'd like to see a mortality breakdown of these tribal peoples plotted against cholesterol level for fun and see if it matches our own higher cholesterol = lower mortality charts.

                            I did find a bit of useful information regarding these HG values here though http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07...ter-gatherers/

                            For instance the bushman collections they note

                            In all cases the samples were stored for weeks or months before being measured far from the place they were drawn – a thousand miles away in Cape Town in the case of Truswell & Hansen. Because the region lacked electricity, it was impossible to keep the samples frozen and difficult to keep them cool. In Miller’s case, the method is described as “difficult.”

                            We concluded from the study of Eskimos by Corcoran and Rabinowitch 1937 (Serum Cholesterol Among the Eskimos and Inuit, July 1) that stale samples preserved for a long journey and then measured by the method of Abell can produce false, low cholesterol readings. That may have happened also in the case of the three San investigators.

                            By the 1990s, sample and measurement techniques were greatly improved. Here are the methods used in a 1992 paper by Tichelaar et al [26]:

                            The Tichelaar sample of Bushmen had an average age of 29. Their plasma fatty acids were relatively good: omega-6 fatty acid levels were far below those of South African whites (9.3% vs 24.4%), and they had the highest EPA:AA ratio among the African groups. However, they drank 2 to 4 liters per day of home-brewed beer, and “vegetable and fruit consumption is little to none at all.” [26] No specific health statistics are given, but Tichelaar indicate that the infectious disease burden was high:


                            I only quoted a couple of items, but a couple things are quite relevant to me. One is that collection and storage techniques where not advanced enough to produce reliable results. By the time they where these tribes are much in transition and not eating in accordance with their heritage any longer.
                            Mean age of person collected is 29. That will certainly make the resultant numbers different than a higher mean age.
                            Infectious disease burden high.....well....parasitic and other infectious processes certainly may be at play.
                            Last edited by Neckhammer; 02-05-2017, 09:04 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I think hypothyroidism is the primary cause of CVD and this model explains the evidence very well
                              My opinions and some justification

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                                I think hypothyroidism is the primary cause of CVD and this model explains the evidence very well
                                Can you point me to an overview of the theory?
                                I moved to primalforums.com to escape the spam.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X