I went low carbing about 7 months ago and lost 8 lbs. I did not have very much to lose. My cholesterol rose from 173 to 286, HDL stayed about same at 61, and LDL rose from 107 to 218. My trigs went lower from 85 to 58. I am concerned for my health and am considering switching my diet. Is there someone else who had similar problems.
This is a problem only if you and/or your physician interprets it as a problem. Your numbers are fairly close to my own: LDL about doubled, HDL stayed flat; trigs about halved. LDL is *good* for you. So are low trigs. If your HDL is high to begin with you may see some reduction in it on LC but the surge in LDL (good cholesterol) tends to be more than enough to mask the decline in that and triglycerides. Savvy doctors nowadays don't look just at the total number: they look at the relative proportions of the cholesterol components and from my own personal experience, I'd say yours look pretty good.
I went low carbing about 7 months ago and lost 8 lbs. I did not have very much to lose. My cholesterol rose from 173 to 286, HDL stayed about same at 61, and LDL rose from 107 to 218. My trigs went lower from 85 to 58. I am concerned for my health and am considering switching my diet. Is there someone else who had similar problems.
This is a problem only if you and/or your physician interprets it as a problem. Your numbers are fairly close to my own: LDL about doubled, HDL stayed flat; trigs about halved. LDL is *good* for you. So are low trigs. If your HDL is high to begin with you may see some reduction in it on LC but the surge in LDL (good cholesterol) tends to be more than enough to mask the decline in that and triglycerides. Savvy doctors nowadays don't look just at the total number: they look at the relative proportions of the cholesterol components and from my own personal experience, I'd say yours look pretty good.
Aren't these reversed? (ie, LDL is bad for you; HDL is good for you)
Sorry everybody. I got it backwards again. *HDL* is good. *LDL* is bad.
After checking my records I see that in my case in the first 10 months of returning to LC my HDL went from 70 to 100; my LDL went from 240 to 182; my trigs went from 74 to 72; total cholesterol went from 315 to 338. (During the same period, my weight went from 275 pounds to 234.)
Piotr's experience is almost exactly the opposite of mine in other words. Sorry for any confusion or flame wars I may have caused.
I went low carbing about 7 months ago and lost 8 lbs. I did not have very much to lose. My cholesterol rose from 173 to 286, HDL stayed about same at 61, and LDL rose from 107 to 218. My trigs went lower from 85 to 58. I am concerned for my health and am considering switching my diet. Is there someone else who had similar problems.
This is a problem only if you and/or your physician interprets it as a problem. Your numbers are fairly close to my own: LDL about doubled, HDL stayed flat; trigs about halved. LDL is *good* for you. So are low trigs. If your HDL is high to begin with you may see some reduction in it on LC but the surge in LDL (good cholesterol) tends to be more than enough to mask the decline in that and triglycerides. Savvy doctors nowadays don't look just at the total number: they look at the relative proportions of the cholesterol components and from my own personal experience, I'd say yours look pretty good.
Uh, it's HDL which is the good one.
Priscilla
-- "It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever. The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal." - QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal
Here's how to remember, HDL is supposed to be High because it's good, LDL is supposed to be Low because it's bad.
In news:[email hidden], Opinicus <[email hidden]> stated | "Opinicus" <[email hidden]> wrote | | Sorry everybody. I got it backwards again. *HDL* is good. | *LDL* is bad. | | After checking my records I see that in my case in the first | 10 months of returning to LC my HDL went from 70 to 100; my | LDL went from 240 to 182; my trigs went from 74 to 72; total | cholesterol went from 315 to 338. (During the same period, | my weight went from 275 pounds to 234.) | | Piotr's experience is almost exactly the opposite of mine in | other words. Sorry for any confusion or flame wars I may | have caused.
jamie wrote: || FOB <[email hidden]> wrote: ||| Here's how to remember, HDL is supposed to be High because it's ||| good, LDL is supposed to be Low because it's bad. || || I remember by H for healthy and L for lethal. || ;-P
I thought there were two components to LDL -- one good and one bad (fluffy large, etc). The good component rises on LC which is why LDL sometimes goes up.
Here's how to remember, HDL is supposed to be High because it's good, LDL is supposed to be Low because it's bad.
I remember it as the "H" standing for "healthy."
Priscilla
-- "It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever. The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal." - QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal
jamie wrote: || FOB <[email hidden]> wrote: ||| Here's how to remember, HDL is supposed to be High because it's ||| good, LDL is supposed to be Low because it's bad. || || I remember by H for healthy and L for lethal. || ;-P
I thought there were two components to LDL -- one good and one bad (fluffy large, etc). The good component rises on LC which is why LDL sometimes goes up.
Those are characteristics of the LDL. You can determine which characcteristic could describe your LDL by looking at the ratio between triglyerides and HDL. Over 3 = denser and smaller (bad) Under 3 bigger and fluffier (good).
Priscilla
-- "It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever. The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal." - QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal
Priscilla Ballou wrote: || In article <[email hidden]>, || "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote: || ||| jamie wrote: ||||| FOB <[email hidden]> wrote: |||||| Here's how to remember, HDL is supposed to be High because it's |||||| good, LDL is supposed to be Low because it's bad. ||||| ||||| I remember by H for healthy and L for lethal. ||||| ;-P ||| ||| I thought there were two components to LDL -- one good and one bad ||| (fluffy large, etc). The good component rises on LC which is why ||| LDL sometimes goes up. || || Those are characteristics of the LDL. You can determine which || characcteristic could describe your LDL by looking at the ratio || between triglyerides and HDL. Over 3 = denser and smaller (bad) || Under 3 bigger || and fluffier (good).
Yeah....mine was fractional last time I checked it (under 1).
I thought there were two components to LDL -- one good and one bad (fluffy large, etc). The good component rises on LC which is why LDL sometimes goes up.
Those are characteristics of the LDL. You can determine which characcteristic could describe your LDL by looking at the ratio between triglyerides and HDL. Over 3 = denser and smaller (bad) Under 3 bigger and fluffier (good).
Opinicus wrote: || "Priscilla Ballou" <[email hidden]> wrote || |||| I thought there were two components to LDL -- one good |||| and one bad (fluffy |||| large, etc). The good component rises on LC which is why |||| LDL sometimes goes |||| up. ||| Those are characteristics of the LDL. You can determine ||| which ||| characcteristic could describe your LDL by looking at the ||| ratio between ||| triglyerides and HDL. Over 3 = denser and smaller (bad) ||| Under 3 bigger ||| and fluffier (good). || || (Ratio = LDL / trig) or (Ratio = trig / LDL)?
||| ratio between ||| triglyerides and HDL. Over 3 = denser and smaller (bad) ||| Under 3 bigger ||| and fluffier (good). || (Ratio = LDL / trig) or (Ratio = trig / LDL)?
Quoted message said:
try Ratio = trig / HDL
Gotta get new glasses. These can't seem to distinguish between initial "H" and initial "L"...
My ratio works out to (72/100) or 0.72 on this basis.
As I recall, there is also something called the "Framingham Index", which is defined as Total/HDL and in which the average risk for men is 5.0 and the average risk for women is 4.4. In this case too, lower is better. Mine was 3.38 after 10 months on LC but it was already only 4.50 when I started.
I thought there were two components to LDL -- one good and one bad (fluffy large, etc). The good component rises on LC which is why LDL sometimes goes up.
Those are characteristics of the LDL. You can determine which characcteristic could describe your LDL by looking at the ratio between triglyerides and HDL. Over 3 = denser and smaller (bad) Under 3 bigger and fluffier (good).
(Ratio = LDL / trig) or (Ratio = trig / LDL)?
Neither. Ratio is tri/HDL.
Priscilla
-- "It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever. The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal." - QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal
