0

votes

Hack My Two Lipid Panels: 01/11/2013 vs. 08/05/2013

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created August 06, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Hello fellow Paleohackers, on 01/12/2013, I posted my blood test results for everyone to critique. You can access my previous post through the following link: http://paleohacks.com/questions/172792/newbie-please-hack-my-blood-results#axzz2bC7kmHls

Yesterday, on 08/05/2013, my Doctor had my Lipid Panel run again to see if there was any change. The top panel below is my Lipid Panel results from 01/11/2013, and the bottom Lipid Panel is the results from yesterday, 08/05/2013.

LIPID PANEL: 01/11/2013

           Value  (Range)

Cholesterol- 195 mg/dl, (0-200)

Triglycerides- 58 mg/dl, (0-150)

HDL- 46 mg/dl, (40-70)

LDL- 137 mg/dl, (0-100)

CHOL/HDL Ratio- 4.2, (0-3.1)

LIPID PANEL: 08/05/2013

         Value  (Range)

Cholesterol- 188 mg/dl, (0-200)

Triglycerides- 36 mg/dl, (0-150)

HDL- 58 mg/dl, (40-70)

LDL- 123 mg/dl, (0-100)

CHOL/HDL Ratio- 3.2, (0-3.1)

What are your thoughts? Personally I was expecting my LDL value to go down more given there was an eight month break in between the tests.

Should I be concerned that my CHOL/HDL Ratio is still high?

Any recommendations to bring my LDL value down further?

3491e51730101b18724dc57c86601173

(8395)

on August 07, 2013
at 01:02 AM

As pointed out in later answers, LDL is calculated using the Freidenwald formula, but with your trigs well below 100 it's inaccurate. When calculated with the Iranian formula, it looks even better. You're doing very well!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:58 PM

Do you have health issues? If not, ignore bloodwork as nice as yours.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:58 PM

Ok, your TC/HDL ratio is off slightly, but the numbers are just dumb. The minimum HDL they want to see is 40, but to meet the ratio you cannot have a TC of more than 120 then. Few people can achieve that. You have very respectable HDL levels, and yet, they're still not good enough according to these standards. Simply dumb.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:56 PM

The only thing in your labs out of range is your LDL number really. It's an insanely low reference range.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:14 PM

Up until a few years ago, the upper limit for LDL was 130. Then a panel of 10 doctors, 9 of which were shills for the drug industry, changes the limit to 100.

97d98cdf2f18fa2c0bd8567ea1159609

(1047)

on August 06, 2013
at 03:55 PM

Matt - Could you elaborate a little bit more on what you mean?

97d98cdf2f18fa2c0bd8567ea1159609

(1047)

on August 06, 2013
at 03:55 PM

Paint - In January 2013 I was doing a Paleo challenge with my gym. I only started eating Paleo in November 2012. Right now I say I'm about 90/10 paleo. The 10% exception being occasional rice, goat cheese, 85% dark chocolate, and frozen yogurt. I eat a lot of protien, and crossfit 4-6 times a week. Since summer began I have consumed more fruit than normal, which I have started cutting back on again. I do need to eat more veggies though. During this time period since November 2012 I've lost 35 pounds and over 15 inches. For the past 6 weeks I have hit a plateau.

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

1
8d6390b3b8991a9cb653a3d13c1cbf6a

(543)

on August 06, 2013
at 06:23 PM

Keep in mind that LDL is typically not directly measured. Instead it is computed by formula from total cholesterol, HDL, and triglycerides via the Friedewald formula. So you're getting an estimate, unless your test directly measured LDL (a bit more expensive).

Even worse, if you have very low triglycerides, the formula is known to be inaccurate. There's a discussion of this topic at: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-friedewald-attacks.html

If you run your numbers through the alternate formula there, you get LDL values of 115 for your first test and 86 for your second test.

But, LDL doesn't seem to correlate with much. Try looking at tri/HDL as another, much more predictive, metric.

0
1f9b52f29960095986234231d91e1967

on August 06, 2013
at 05:34 PM

Also, bear in mind that LDL and HDL are very potentially not accurate in terms of determining risk of heart disease. Triglycerides are supposedly a more accurate indicator, but this is my recollection of Eades' Protein Power (1999-2001-ish?) and Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories (2006). (Merely in terms of reducing heart disease risk or even reversing it, vitamin K2 is a good starting point for research... If that's new, it may be of interest to you.)

Best of luck!

Sabertooth

Edit: Appendation - The amount of cholesterol circulating within the blood does not, in and of itself, affect heart disease risk either. Chris Kresser had a series of interesting blog posts re: cholesterol & heart disease.
I think that, because cholesterol is an essential repair mechanism for the body, fluctuating levels of cholesterol can simply be indicating repairs going on, or other processes requiring cholesterol. Low circulating cholesterol is thus also not necessarily a good thing. However, cholesterol can oxidize and form plaques and such on the walls of tissues in the presence of certain things, including free radicals. If I recall correctly, calcium being deposited incorrectly is somehow related to either hardening of arteries or both hardening and plaques forming, bur vitamin K2, which was widely consumed by paleolithic peoples but has nearly disappeared in modern SAD consumption, is supposedly somewhat to mostly proven to reverse thus by at least redepositing the calcium into hard rise from soft tissues (such as the heart).

If I find Eades' book and read through it, I will let you know (hopefully) as to the reasoning & functioning behind HDL & LDL & why they are irrelevant in predicting heart disease risk, in a similar fashion to cholesterol, if you would like.


Obesity, however, is positively correlated with an increase in heart disease risk. I am not sure whether this is because of the lifestyle which typefies obese peoples in majority (tendency towards a sedentary lifestyle, consumption of empty, processed, oxidized-saturated-fat-containing foods & high fructose corn syrup...) or because of an underlying health weakness simply from "being obese", but weight loss seems like a potentially huge factor.

Also, keep in mind that being vigorously active for brief periods of time, then very sedentary will still result in over 70-95% sedentariness and not constant movement or activity of the body, which also does seem to correlate strongly with longevity/overall health/heart disease risks.

0
2e777bbcd49262eb31a24f821abec6bc

(1974)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:04 PM

I think that your numbers are fine and headed in an even better direction. I would just keep doing what you have been over the past 8 months.

0
32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 06, 2013
at 03:34 PM

The only problem is that your LDL is outside an arbitrarily small reference value.

97d98cdf2f18fa2c0bd8567ea1159609

(1047)

on August 06, 2013
at 03:55 PM

Matt - Could you elaborate a little bit more on what you mean?

3491e51730101b18724dc57c86601173

(8395)

on August 07, 2013
at 01:02 AM

As pointed out in later answers, LDL is calculated using the Freidenwald formula, but with your trigs well below 100 it's inaccurate. When calculated with the Iranian formula, it looks even better. You're doing very well!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:56 PM

The only thing in your labs out of range is your LDL number really. It's an insanely low reference range.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:58 PM

Ok, your TC/HDL ratio is off slightly, but the numbers are just dumb. The minimum HDL they want to see is 40, but to meet the ratio you cannot have a TC of more than 120 then. Few people can achieve that. You have very respectable HDL levels, and yet, they're still not good enough according to these standards. Simply dumb.

61844af1187e745e09bb394cbd28cf23

(11058)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:14 PM

Up until a few years ago, the upper limit for LDL was 130. Then a panel of 10 doctors, 9 of which were shills for the drug industry, changes the limit to 100.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41757)

on August 06, 2013
at 05:58 PM

Do you have health issues? If not, ignore bloodwork as nice as yours.

0
Af679502f1e31c0c59c79bd08f324b35

on August 06, 2013
at 03:21 PM

What were you eating during both tests?

97d98cdf2f18fa2c0bd8567ea1159609

(1047)

on August 06, 2013
at 03:55 PM

Paint - In January 2013 I was doing a Paleo challenge with my gym. I only started eating Paleo in November 2012. Right now I say I'm about 90/10 paleo. The 10% exception being occasional rice, goat cheese, 85% dark chocolate, and frozen yogurt. I eat a lot of protien, and crossfit 4-6 times a week. Since summer began I have consumed more fruit than normal, which I have started cutting back on again. I do need to eat more veggies though. During this time period since November 2012 I've lost 35 pounds and over 15 inches. For the past 6 weeks I have hit a plateau.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!