2

votes

Freakish cholesterol scores

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created May 08, 2012 at 3:17 AM

My wife got back her cholesterol test results, and I'm not sure she has health problems or if she is an avatar of Vishnu:

Total: 140 HDL: 78.6 LDL: 44 VLDL: 16 Triglycerides: 78

Yes, triglycerides need a little work, but holy cats, her HDL is nearly double her LDL! I seem to remember reading somewhere that odd cholesterol numbers like that may mean some kind of potential health problem, but I can't find anything about it, and I suspect I may be imagining it.

She's been primal for about 3 months with a couple of cheats a week, occasionally with gluten.

6b9264368843c0a0c85f3dc8f5db9acb

(0)

on May 14, 2012
at 03:38 AM

The first link is sorta worthless. It refers to a study that unfortunately a) related mortality to TOTAL cholesterol and b) lumped everyone with TC > 266 into the same category, so as to obscure the outcome difference between those w high HDLs and those w low. To extrapolate from a grouping that goes all the way from 266 on up, especially when most of the group will have TC below 300, is incredibly stupid. The second link is great(!!), both the direct link and the underlying PDF.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on May 08, 2012
at 06:26 PM

Hi, Korion! I definitely need lots of fruit to thrive. On SAD, on "diets" and on this unprocessed food lifestyle I have always eaten fruit. It's typical for me to have a whole peeled grapefruit, one or more bananas and some berries. If I go more than 2 days without my skin color looks less happy and I go low energy. But then, the same is true for meat. About the only things I can happily go long intervals without are nuts and starch.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on May 08, 2012
at 06:19 PM

Have you ever tried eating more fructose, Nance?

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on May 08, 2012
at 06:18 PM

The last thing I'd want is such a low cholesterol. If you want to crank it up, she could eat lots of fructose (eg. fruit :) )

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on May 08, 2012
at 05:22 AM

Certainly not at risk of high! But do talk to the doc. As much as we pooh-pooh conventional wisdom 'round these parts, numbers far outside the norm (say, TC of 500, to pick a random example) do bear looking at. Good luck. :)

89c5726021149f9833fb0dbb66f838f6

(149)

on May 08, 2012
at 04:37 AM

It was a lab. 10-12 hours is about the fasting range.

89c5726021149f9833fb0dbb66f838f6

(149)

on May 08, 2012
at 04:35 AM

@TeaElf: It's her first cholesterol test, but she's otherwise pretty healthy. We weren't expecting odd results. The nurse didn't have any feedback beyond saying she wasn't in danger of high cholesterol, but her doctor hasn't reviewed the results with her yet.

7767e05a8c4504f6be03f13ee40815cd

(1299)

on May 08, 2012
at 04:30 AM

Bill, that's not normal.

1c67bc28f4e44bbb8770b86df0463df3

(6719)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:53 AM

are you kidding me? my TC is over 500 and everyone on Paleo says its perfectly normal

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:41 AM

It could be genetic; see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypobetalipoproteinemia . Is this her first cholesterol test, or is this a huge change from her last one?

Fb67dc30cead043d1d13ea503a3044dc

(3280)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:35 AM

I would test again, in case of lab error. Has she spoken to a health professional, for an opinion of what a ratio like that may mean?

89c5726021149f9833fb0dbb66f838f6

(149)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:27 AM

I know it's generally considered better, but my impression was that it's extremely rare to have a cholesterol ratio that low.

  • 89c5726021149f9833fb0dbb66f838f6

    asked by

    (149)
  • Views
    1.6K
  • Last Activity
    1546D AGO
Frontpage book

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

4 Answers

best answer

3
96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on May 08, 2012
at 05:44 PM

I think this is probably a genetic thing as I and my son have to eat lots of fat to maintain low-normal levels of cholesterol. My reading of 178 after a year of avoiding unprocessed is the highest I've ever achieved. I eat lots of fatty beef, eggs, bacon and extra-fat bacon plus olive oil on my salads and some salmon/sardines.

Years ago, on a "healthy" low-fat diet I dropped to 134; at the time, of course, I was delighted and thought that was great. On high-fat SAD I came in around 160 which I was told was "unheard of." My son's lowest was in the one-teens.

Here's some good news for you: I've made it to age 65 without any (known) symptoms of cardiovascular disease. In my 40s, when having a CAT for something else, my carotid was pristine.

I'll admit that some things I've read, including recent articles by Chris Kresser, have created background worry about cancer, etc., but you know everybody dies sometime from something. So I keep telling myself to get over it and enjoy whatever remains for me in life.

96bf58d8c6bd492dc5b8ae46203fe247

(37227)

on May 08, 2012
at 06:26 PM

Hi, Korion! I definitely need lots of fruit to thrive. On SAD, on "diets" and on this unprocessed food lifestyle I have always eaten fruit. It's typical for me to have a whole peeled grapefruit, one or more bananas and some berries. If I go more than 2 days without my skin color looks less happy and I go low energy. But then, the same is true for meat. About the only things I can happily go long intervals without are nuts and starch.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on May 08, 2012
at 06:19 PM

Have you ever tried eating more fructose, Nance?

0
6b8d12fc3e43179f9ae1765a4d1a9dc2

(5914)

on May 08, 2012
at 11:05 AM

As far as I know, really high cholesterol is as bad if not worse than high cholesterol.

I seem to referencing him a lot lately but Colpo has writen on this a few times from memory...

http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=2341

http://anthonycolpo.com/?p=45 "* Autopsy studies and PET scans show no correlation between level of cholesterol and degree of atherosclerosis. These studies have shown that people with very low cholesterol levels can have severely diseased arteries." -

6b9264368843c0a0c85f3dc8f5db9acb

(0)

on May 14, 2012
at 03:38 AM

The first link is sorta worthless. It refers to a study that unfortunately a) related mortality to TOTAL cholesterol and b) lumped everyone with TC > 266 into the same category, so as to obscure the outcome difference between those w high HDLs and those w low. To extrapolate from a grouping that goes all the way from 266 on up, especially when most of the group will have TC below 300, is incredibly stupid. The second link is great(!!), both the direct link and the underlying PDF.

0
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on May 08, 2012
at 04:06 AM

Did she fast for longer than 10-12 hours? I agree with the second test. Was it a portable test or a lab?

89c5726021149f9833fb0dbb66f838f6

(149)

on May 08, 2012
at 04:37 AM

It was a lab. 10-12 hours is about the fasting range.

0
9a5e2da94ad63ea3186dfa494e16a8d1

on May 08, 2012
at 03:23 AM

You might have that backwards, HDL is "good" cholesterol and it is better to have HDL > LDL.

89c5726021149f9833fb0dbb66f838f6

(149)

on May 08, 2012
at 03:27 AM

I know it's generally considered better, but my impression was that it's extremely rare to have a cholesterol ratio that low.

B0fe7b5a9a197cd293978150cbd9055f

(8938)

on May 08, 2012
at 06:18 PM

The last thing I'd want is such a low cholesterol. If you want to crank it up, she could eat lots of fructose (eg. fruit :) )

Answer Question


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