My husband and I have been eating Paleo for the last 3 months. I haven't had my bloodwork done yet but my husband's results just came back and since we are still relatively new to this lifestyle, we're really not sure how to interpret these results. Any insight would be appreciated. He is a 34 yrs. old, 5'10", 200 lbs.
Total chol: 198 mg Trigs: 56 mg HDL: 71 mg. LDL: 116 mg. VLDL Cholesterol Cal: 11 mg. (I don't know what this is?) Chol/HDLC Ratio: 2.79 (dont know what this is either) Glucose: 93 mg.
asked byCheryl_10 (5)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on December 28, 2012
at 04:41 AM
This is repetitive but the answers above seem to be largely correct:
HDL accounts for a whopping 37% of your total cholesterol. TC/HDL is well under 3.5x at 2.8x. This ratio supposedly closely mimics LDL-P. HDL increases largely from exercise and vigorous activity. HDL over 70 at sub-200 cholesterol definitely protects you from CVD.
Trigs / HDL is under 1.0x. Low trigs largely result from low-carbing and calorie restriction. This basicallay tells you that your inflammation is at a very low level. If your Trigs / HDL goes over 2.0x and exceeds 3.0x, we supposedly see insulin resistance. Look at his liver enzymes and see if they're between, say, 10-25, then that would be ideal. If not, then perhaps he's been losing weight or recovering from fatty liver or still detoxing.
LDL at that level is largely directional, depending on HDL and Trigs. It's "neutral" and the LDL # itself is meaningless unless above 200 ro so. VLDL is just 1/5th of Trigs. It's not measured; it's just a numerical computation and some doctors don't even know that it's actually not measured, just like LDL here.
93 FBG may seem a bit high considering low trigs but it's not surprising if he's low-carbing. FBG is not a reliable benchmark of blood sugar control when low-carbing. Actually, even if you're not low-carbing, it's not that accurate. In the ballpark but not pinpoint accurate. I'd get an HbA1c and make sure it's between say 4.0-5.5 or so. It probably is, unless he has pre-existing insulin resistance.
Having liver enzyme numbers, body fat %, A1c, GFR/BUN/Creatinine, daily dietary intake and exercise regimen can put his lipid #s in more proper perspective.
on November 15, 2012
at 03:59 PM
I believe that LDL cal means that value is calculated from TC, HDL and TG, not measured independently.
What I have read from multiple sources is that the HDL/TG and HDL are the best positive instantaneous correlations to cardiovascular health. Higher is better and both numbers are pretty good for him. TC and LDL are not as well correlated and many say they are irrelevant in most cases. But those are only current blood levels marking physiological processes that have cumulative and path dependent effects. That is, could be good at the moment but not reflecting the underlying state of calcification in the arteries. Hemoglobin A1c by contrast to blood glucose shows more the state or condition of glycosilation or AGEs in the blood cumulative over a period of 2 months +/-. The blood lipids equivalent would be Calcium score from a scan. But who wants more radiation given his relatively good condition? If you are looking for motivation and validation of therapeutic targets/goals you have that already, though could be more convincing if the before (you have not given) and after values show positive trend.
Consider also the total health context or baseline. 5' 10" and 200# is not so good. How about the waist to height and waist to hips ratio? Those are negatively correlated (ie lower is better) with the bad kind of fat, abdominal, that produces estrogen (even in males) and associated with overall health problems. There was an article on mercola.com on this specific subject with links to the basic research and Mayo studies.
on December 27, 2012
at 08:32 PM
Good responses here but if the doctor didn't explain the results, you should get a new doctor.
on November 15, 2012
at 03:20 PM
Chol/HDLC Ratio is just the total cholesterol divided by the HDL, and some people think it's the best indicator of potential heart disease. You want it lower rather than higher, but there is disagreement about exact numbers. Most docs will say for a man, it should be under 3.4, so your husband's is well within the "happy" range.
on November 15, 2012
at 03:04 PM
I've seen a lot of bloodwork and his looks typical for a 34 year-old healthy male. VLDL is very low density lipoprotein. As he continues on paleo, HDL will probably increase (considering he does HIIT exercises) and VLDL and triglycerides will likely decrease. An optimal fasting glucose level would be 75 - 85, but under 100 is still good.