Ad Widget

Collapse

High LDL cholesterol

Collapse

Announcement

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

  • #46
    Total cholesterol is still problematic when its above 300 as it may be an indicator of inflammation, including heart disease.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by NewOldGuy View Post
      And triglyceride level is important and everyone agrees lower is better.
      It isn't that the lower the triglyceride the better all the way down to zero. Most scientists and labs suggest a lower limit. My lab tests list 30 mg/dl as the low end of the normal range, for example, and recent research suggests that even that may be too low (more info at http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ml#post1603797 ).
      Originally posted by tatertot
      Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong.
      "our ancestors obtained resistant starch and other fermentable fibers by eating a diversity of wild plant foods, bulbs, corms, tubers, cattails, cactuses, and medicinal barks..." -Mark Sisson

      "I've long ago tossed the idea that a particular macro ratio is poison, and am now starting to think that the EM2…is defined less by novel NADS…and more by the gut microbiome and environmental pseudocommensals ..." -Kurt Harris, MD

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Paleophil View Post
        It isn't that the lower the triglyceride the better all the way down to zero. Most scientists and labs suggest a lower limit. My lab tests list 30 mg/dl as the low end of the normal range, for example, and recent research suggests that even that may be too low (more info at http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...ml#post1603797 ).
        Clearly there are uncommon extremes. If a dieter just lowers calories too much they eventually die. But generally speaking, the advice is to keep trigs low as almost everyone (not counting disease causes) is above 30 except dummies who cut all fat out of their diet. Doing that will kill you anyway. In the context of paleo eating, you lower trigs to an acceptable level by cutting out refined carbs and bad fats.
        Last edited by NewOldGuy; 03-30-2015, 12:29 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Very low triglycerides are associated with excessively low carbs, rather than low fats, which is why so many VLCers are on the low end of the normal range or lower for trigs. High intakes of omega-3 fats can also contribute to lower trigs.
          Originally posted by tatertot
          Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong.
          "our ancestors obtained resistant starch and other fermentable fibers by eating a diversity of wild plant foods, bulbs, corms, tubers, cattails, cactuses, and medicinal barks..." -Mark Sisson

          "I've long ago tossed the idea that a particular macro ratio is poison, and am now starting to think that the EM2…is defined less by novel NADS…and more by the gut microbiome and environmental pseudocommensals ..." -Kurt Harris, MD

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Paleophil View Post
            Very low triglycerides are associated with excessively low carbs, rather than low fats
            You should check the research on that. Yes high trigs are usually caused by too many refined carbs. But very low trigs are associated with very low fat diets with moderate carbs.

            Comment


            • #51
              I'll gladly check out whatever research you wish to share on that. That would be interesting. Perhaps both chronic VLF and chronic VLC can result in very low trigs.

              My own experience was that my trigs went lower than they've ever been when I was VLC, and most of the reports of trigs below 50, or close to it, that I've seen in this forum and elsewhere were by LCers. Usually, when these low trig numbers get reported, LCers say it's a natural result of the LC diets and that it's a good thing.
              Last edited by Paleophil; 03-30-2015, 08:42 PM.
              Originally posted by tatertot
              Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong.
              "our ancestors obtained resistant starch and other fermentable fibers by eating a diversity of wild plant foods, bulbs, corms, tubers, cattails, cactuses, and medicinal barks..." -Mark Sisson

              "I've long ago tossed the idea that a particular macro ratio is poison, and am now starting to think that the EM2…is defined less by novel NADS…and more by the gut microbiome and environmental pseudocommensals ..." -Kurt Harris, MD

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Paleophil View Post
                I'll gladly check out whatever research you wish to share on that. That would be interesting. Perhaps both chronic VLF and chronic VLC can result in very low trigs.
                Triglycerides are how your body stores excess calories. All dietary fat is already in the form of triglycerides as that is how fatty acids are stored in both animals and plants that we eat. So excess intake is just stored directly by humans, without a need for any conversion. But it goes from digestion into the blood first, before storing, and thus shows in the serum levels. Dietary carbs must be converted to triglycerides for storage, but only when your caloric intake exceeds caloric needs. On a low-fat diet, while in a calorie deficit, your body may not be able to make triglycerides from carbs. On a low carb diet you are generally still eating lots of fat, so your serum level of triglycerides should still be in the normal range unless you are doing extended fasting. This is why too-low trigs is more often seen on low fat diets. On low carb diets you usually see trigs in the healthy "normal" range and it's hard to get under 30 unless you have other problems.

                Obviously trig measurements are highly dependent on timing and recent meals too.
                Last edited by NewOldGuy; 03-31-2015, 11:52 AM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Sodium and magnesium both tend to lower triglyceride levels.
                  My opinions and some justification

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Just checked my lab reports and see that the normal range for trigs is actually listed as 35-160 mg/dl (Of course, different labs have different ranges), so I was a bit off thinking that 30 was the low end of the listed range.

                    NewOldGuy, What’s your view on the cause(s) of the LCers in this and other Paleo and LC forums (including this thread) and blogs who are reporting low and falling trigs—frequently below the 60’s, with some falling below 30? Do you think it’s because they’re eating below their caloric energy needs?

                    What do you mean by low fat and mod carb in terms of % of calories or grams/day, roughly?

                    Elliot, Good to see you chime in. What do you think of NewOldGuy's report of very low trigs being more common among low fat / mod carb dieters than VLCers? I honestly hadn't seen or heard of that before. I've only seen VLCers report it (and usually someone will say that it's a good thing, with some even saying "the lower the better"). When I've seen discussion of trigs among Peatarians and 801010ers, it's usually sparked by someone who is concerned about their elevated trigs on these diets (and some do indeed recommend increasing Mg intake to lower the trigs).
                    Last edited by Paleophil; 03-31-2015, 06:53 PM.
                    Originally posted by tatertot
                    Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong.
                    "our ancestors obtained resistant starch and other fermentable fibers by eating a diversity of wild plant foods, bulbs, corms, tubers, cattails, cactuses, and medicinal barks..." -Mark Sisson

                    "I've long ago tossed the idea that a particular macro ratio is poison, and am now starting to think that the EM2…is defined less by novel NADS…and more by the gut microbiome and environmental pseudocommensals ..." -Kurt Harris, MD

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Paleophil View Post
                      Elliot, Good to see you chime in. What do you think of NewOldGuy's report of very low trigs being more common among low fat / mod carb dieters than VLCers? I honestly hadn't seen or heard of that before. I've only seen VLCers report it (and usually someone will say that it's a good thing, with some even saying "the lower the better"). When I've seen discussion of trigs among Peatarians and 801010ers, it's usually sparked by someone who is concerned about their elevated trigs on these diets (and some do indeed recommend increasing Mg intake to lower the trigs).
                      I am similarly unfamiliar with this observation. Generally, eating more fat tends to decrease triglyceride levels. If this is simply from observation, then I wonder how much of it is due to the carbohydrate/fat ratio, as opposed to confounding factors.

                      NewOldGuy's most recent post seems to be implying that triglycerides are derived mostly from carbohydrates. This occurs, but to a very minor degree. Most of the triglycerides in circulation come from the liver, having been produced from free fatty acids. It's a continuous cycle in which free fatty acids leave fat cells, enter the liver, are made into triglycerides, leave the liver as such, and are absorbed back into fat cells.
                      My opinions and some justification

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Elliot View Post
                        NewOldGuy's most recent post seems to be implying that triglycerides are derived mostly from carbohydrates.
                        I don't know how you read that in my post. I did say that subnormal trigs are often observed on very low fat diets. There are many citations mentioning this.
                        Last edited by NewOldGuy; 03-31-2015, 07:51 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by NewOldGuy View Post
                          I don't know how you read that in my post.
                          Sorry to misrepresent you, then.
                          My opinions and some justification

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            In the absence of inflammation high cholesterol is a sign of good health (within reason). There is no disputing that if you really read the literature. Curious what your trigs are at.....
                            Last edited by zcfgzcfh; 03-31-2015, 11:57 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by NewOldGuy View Post
                              I don't know how you read that in my post. I did say that subnormal trigs are often observed on very low fat diets. There are many citations mentioning this.
                              I'm looking forward to those. I like reports that run contrary to the common Primal wisdom, because I find they can sometimes reveal things that we have overlooked. I know that both LC and LF diets can lower trigs when there's a caloric deficit, but typically it's LC diets that are reported in Primal/LC circles as lowering trigs more than LF diets, so yours is an interestingly different take on it.
                              Originally posted by tatertot
                              Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong.
                              "our ancestors obtained resistant starch and other fermentable fibers by eating a diversity of wild plant foods, bulbs, corms, tubers, cattails, cactuses, and medicinal barks..." -Mark Sisson

                              "I've long ago tossed the idea that a particular macro ratio is poison, and am now starting to think that the EM2…is defined less by novel NADS…and more by the gut microbiome and environmental pseudocommensals ..." -Kurt Harris, MD

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by solomani View Post
                                I just got my bloodwork done for the first time since I went primal and here are my raw numbers. Its also the first time in my life I have had "high" cholesterol. It looks like they used the Friedman calculation:

                                Cholesterol 303
                                Trig 52
                                HDL 58
                                LDL 235
                                So here is an update on my numbers. I had more blood-work done this week. Though my doctor is not happy with it these numbers (she wants to see between 150 to 193 total) they are within the normal range I believe (basically less than 300).

                                RAW results:
                                Cholesterol 247
                                Trig 52
                                HDL 58
                                LDL 235

                                Friedewald Conversion:
                                Cholesterol 247
                                Trig 52
                                HDL 58
                                LDL 179

                                Iranian Conversion:
                                Cholesterol 247
                                Trig 52
                                HDL 58
                                LDL 144

                                Last time they clinic used the Friedewald algoarthim. This time, I have no idea how they got these numbers as they don't gel with either Iranian or Friedewald.

                                The *only* thing I changed over these last six weeks is that I started taking resistant starch everyday (about 30g as a supplement) and tried to hit the 100g of carbs/day (generally healthy/paleo, but not everyday). I didn't always succeed hitting the 100g of carbs per day as I have been living on 25 to 75g since 2009 but I did try.

                                Doctor said that was a big improvement. She wants to test again in six weeks and told me to cut out butter (sigh).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X