Re: Cholesterol rose with low carb



O

Opinicus

Guest
"Piotr Tomaszewski" <[email protected]> wrote

>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.

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://www.kanyak.com
 
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:44:24 +0200, Opinicus <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Piotr Tomaszewski" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> 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)

--
Bob in CT
 
"Opinicus" <[email protected]> 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.

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://www.kanyak.com
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Opinicus" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Piotr Tomaszewski" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> >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 protected],
Opinicus <[email protected]> stated
| "Opinicus" <[email protected]> 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.
 
FOB <[email protected]> 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

--
jamie ([email protected])

"There's a seeker born every minute."
 
jamie wrote:
|| FOB <[email protected]> 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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"FOB" <[email protected]> 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 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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:

> jamie wrote:
> || FOB <[email protected]> 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 protected]>,
|| "Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| jamie wrote:
||||| FOB <[email protected]> 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).
 
"Priscilla Ballou" <[email protected]> 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)?

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://www.kanyak.com
 
Opinicus wrote:
|| "Priscilla Ballou" <[email protected]> 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)?

try Ratio = trig / HDL
 
"Roger Zoul" <[email protected]> wrote
> ||| ratio between
> ||| triglyerides and HDL. Over 3 = denser and smaller
> (bad)
> ||| Under 3 bigger
> ||| and fluffier (good).
> || (Ratio = LDL / trig) or (Ratio = trig / LDL)?

> 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.

--
Bob
Kanyak's Doghouse
http://www.kanyak.com
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Opinicus" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Priscilla Ballou" <[email protected]> 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)?

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
 
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 20:32:53 GMT, FOB wrote in
alt.support.diet.low-carb:

>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.

A friend of mine recently came up with:

"You got yer Happy cholesterol and you got yer Lousy choleserol"

....which has worked better for me than anything else to date.

--
6/2/2003 181/167/164?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back