I just got the results of a blood test I had to take- I was applying for life insurance (can you guess what kind of rate they offered me, based on these numbers?!! )

However, I'm not really sure what to think. My cholesterol has always been on the high side, same for much of my family, but no history of heart disease. I have been low carbing for a little more than a year.

Total cholesterol: 334
HDL: 131
LDL: 190
Triglycerides: 65

Those are fantastic numbers. Your HDL is great and so is your triglycerides. You're too healthy to need life insurance.

Wouldn't it be lovely if good lipid numbers were all that was required to ensure a long life -- no other life-threatening diseases, no car accidents, no being in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc., etc. And there's no arguing with a life insurance company about what numbers are actually significant - I don't think they understand/accept the difference between measured and calculated LDL nor the difference between large fluffy, and small dense particles.

I have no ideas for improving your life insurance rates, but Mike is certainly right -- those are good numbers and, if you've been following a low-carb diet for a year or more, you can be sure your LDL is the large, fluffy, good kind so ease your mind!

I'm still waiting on my numbers. I was in the doctors office for a checkup and my doctor said my blood pressure was slightly elevated. I think it was because I was nervous. Anyways she ordered blood test to check my cholesterol and other numbers. Hopefully it comes back fine. -Serif

My cholesterol level rose from 219 last year to 358 I've been lcing for 7 weeks. I do know my good cholesterol level rose, but I don't recall the number. I see the dr on Monday and will post full results. However, the huge jump to 358 is freaking me out. I have researched a bit and see that menopause makes cholesterol levels go up. I went thru surgically induced menopause in November so hopefully that is the culprit. I don't want to give up on this WOE!

HDL of 131? I'm jealous!

Jen, it's quite common to see a rise in total cholesterol during the early stages of low-carbing. In six months, if you get retested, you'll probably see a dramatic drop in the total. If your doctor wants to put you on medication to bring it down, tell him/her you'd like to try to improve the numbers with diet first. If he insists on writing you a prescription, accept it but you don't have to have it filled.

Thanks, Glenda I'm going into the appointment on Monday with that mind set. I want a chance to make it go down without meds - maybe with Niacin. I had a test 2 years ago which showed that my cholesterol levels could not be lowered much by diet or exercise, and that it was genetic. Also, that the cholesterol 'globs' are not sticky and are too large to pass through the blood veins to the rest of the body. So..although my number is really high, I think that it's not so bad as I thought upon first hearing this morning. I will post back with the results of my conversation with the dr.

Also, I'm having several screenings done next with on my heart and vascular system. For $150 at the Heart Center I will get a really good picture of whether or not there is buildup in my arteries. Fingers crossed for good results

Hi, I just joined today and this thread seemed like a natural starting point.

I'm sorry for all of you who are worried about your high cholesterol. Let me tell you about my situation, you may feel a little better. I'm a 65 year old male with familial high cholesterol. At age 20 I first learned of my genetic condition by being told that my 350+ level "wouldn't affect me until I was in my thirties". Oh great I thought, I'll never make it to 40. Consequently I got on every study I could find to bring my numbers down, but getting below 300 was impossible until statins arrived. Then, using maximum (80mg daily) Lipitor and Niaspan I got my TC down below 300, barely. I firmly believed I'd never make 55. Move forward to ten years ago when my doctor asked me to get an EBT (electron beam tomography) of my heart arteries. I was terrified. Obviously, according to the conventional wisdom and with with those numbers my heart arteries would be just barely functional, or so I thought. Amazingly, I had ZERO plaque calcification. NONE!! I've repeated the test four times and guess what - ZERO! each time. My current risk of heart attack is less than one-half of one percent per year. (Some question EBT, but the cardiologists I've interviewed think it is the real gold standard. As good or better than invasive angiography. After all, EBT doesn't guess at artery condition, it shows a picture of calcified plaque. There is no extrapolation. Also, the record shows that EBT is an effective screen.

This got me thinking -- If I have had such high TC levels for all my life, why do I have clear arteries? What is going on? Perhaps the meds have kept me plaque free? Reading the scholarly literature, even if you buy into the idea that statins "reduce plaque burden", nobody, I mean nobody, ever suggests that statins come close to eliminating plaque. No study I've found even suggests more that single digit percentage reductions in stenosis over many years, and you can bet if the drug companies could show meaningful clearing of arteries, we'd all know about it! (Whether single digit reductions are meaningful is dubious, in my opinion.)

So, why no plaque? I've read Ravnskov and Kendrick, Graves and Taubes and guess what - they've made a lot of sense. I decided to take their advice, and I decided to see two cardiologists (highly recommended to me). Their quotes are priceless -"Somebody should write you up, not me, of course", and "you're an enigma". When asked how their plaque model (high TC means clogged arteries) fits with my condition, they changed the subject. Even though there are many people like me, cardiologists never see them because people like me don't have heart disease! And as a result they aren't interested in figuring out why.

Where am I today? I eat fat, lots of saturated fat, bacon, butter, fat on steaks, a dozen or more eggs a week, cheese by the 2 pound block, sliced ham, nuts... I try really hard not to eat carbs. Virtually no fruit, modest amounts of green veggies, a little bread only when I can't stand the deprivation. Since 2007 I've lost 35 pounds and am now at BMI 23, I don't exercise (I should) and I never ever think about food quantities or calorie content. I'm addicted to carbs (that really is the word for it) and it is an almost daily battle to stay away.

Two years ago, after reading Graves, I quit 80 mg of Lipitor and 500 mg of Niaspan cold turkey. My TC is today 580! My LDL is 480! Since quitting carbs my particle size has gone from mixed AB to all A, a significant improvement. TG are now below 100 (from lifetime of ~300). My latest EBT still showed no plaque, I feel better than I've ever felt physically and mentally. I really think the Lipitor did a number on my memory because I'm aware of remembering things that "don't seem like I should have remembered that".

My advice (Note that I'm not a doctor, just an engineer):

Read Malcolm Kendrick's "The Great Cholesterol Con". His arguments are persuasive that high cholesterol is not a problem.

Use Google Scholar to find studies on cholesterol lowering and overall mortality. You'll be amazed. Dig into the details of the studies and keep an open mind. Think analytically.

Read Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories". The level of effort and skill that Gary put into that book is unequalled in the diet and nutrition field. There isn't even a second place.

When you encounter someone who promotes a low fat, low saturated fat and low cholesterol diet, ask about their sources. Get to know who the conventional-diet sources are and dig in enough to understand the pros and cons of their arguments. It is amazing to me how nepotistic the conventional diet community is.

Thanks for listening. Good Luck.

THANK YOU for posting your information It does make me feel *much* better about my situation. 45 year old female. Family history of high cholesterol. Since starting LC, my HDL and triglycerides are GREAT! My LDL is 282 My family doctor is really on me to get it down or he will prescribe statins (which he realizes I am not going to take.) Just this week, I've had vascular screening, carotid artery and heart screening, EKG, stress test and nuclear imaging tests. All results are in except for the imaging, and there is no sign of plaque whatsoever. My blood pressure is always around 110/60, w/o meds. The cardiologist still insists I get my LDL down but I'm not so worried now. My LDL is mostly the light and fluffy, and I don't think I want to take a statin to lower it, as I've heard they aren't as effective for women, AND it could also lower my HDL and tri. Not willing to do that

Anyway, Thanks again for your info. It gives me peace of mind! My grandma, who died at the age of 93, had high cholesterol her whole life and died of pneumonia. NEver ever had any heart issues!

I've been back to one those cardiologists (I'm not sure why) and again he said "I'm probably the only cardiologist in Seattle that wouldn't lock the exam room door until you agreed to get back on a statin." I asked him, in view of his earlier statement that my risk was less than half of one percent (as low as the risk numbers ever go), what possible benefit he imagined I'd receive or what possible beneficial mechanism might occur from taking a statin. He was really flummoxed. He said "You might be part of that one half of one percent!" What the (expletive deleted) does that mean?! I might be a Martian; there is just as much evidence for either idea.

My mother and her mother had FH. Neither had heart problems and both lived to near 80. One of my grandmother's parents had FH, I think it was my great-grandmother because I remember seeing her very prominent arcus senilis (white rings) around her eyes. She died at 93 of a broken hip, he died months later at age 96. The family story was that they always kept a goat (I saw the goat once) so that they could have their daily glass of goat's milk.

You are right that there has never been a study to show any statin benefit for women, and the evidence (Jupiter study not withstanding) that it helps disease free men is hardly credible. As Ravnskov points out, the "best" study fails the dose-response criteria and should not be considered meaningful.

Good Luck