Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > Cholesterol, Heart Disease
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Fri, Mar-02-07, 23:51
Mutant's Avatar
Mutant Mutant is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 332
 
Plan: DiPasquale Radical Diet
Stats: 301.5/260.2/260 Male 71
BF:25%/?%/15%
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
So pre-med students failed physiology or they did not seem to undertsnad it? How they managed to get undergraduate degree then I belive it includes more than just memorizing anatomy.


Just personal experience with many pre-med. I guess it's possible I've just run into all the 'slow' students, but with the 60+ I've had class with, it was the rule, with a few notable exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
In my home country, my pre-med students peers also took physics, calculus, phys. and oranic chem. and all of this requires understanding graphs and functions, I believe. We just took physics, calculus,a nd phys. chem.


I think they require the same thing here in America, but maybe we are just dumber here. Maybe Americans can start going to medical and graduate school internationally? It would sure open up some spots for all of the international students here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
MD is not a mechanic, since human body is not a mechanism, where each part can be isolated and fixed separately. BTW, if a mechanic can't find a problem, he is not a mechanic at all. I work with diffrent type of equipment and we never failed to find a problem and troubleshoot it.


You have a really negative view of what a 'mechanism' is; it's not clear to me that 'mechanism' means that you dont consider the inter-relationship of parts. I imagine most mechanical engineers would disagree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
Human body is not a mechanism, it is a biochemical system that involved hundreds of hormones. Just endocrine system alone consists of many glands, not only pancrease, and these glands works synergetically and define the rest of the functions. Unfortunately, many choose to ignore this fact, and simply fixated on one hormone, insulin.
This system is too complex and poorly understood, and each part (organ) can't be troubleshooted and fixed JUST BY ISOLATION. Unfortunately, this approach is used in western medicine and many problems arise because of it. No singe medication exist that treats one problem without creating a dozen of others but this is the best drs can do so far.


I don't think referring to doctors as 'mechanics' and implying that the body is a 'mechanism' is limiting at all, but feel free to set fire to the straw man. FYI, my point was that many car mechanics have superiour skills of diagnosis than doctors, and that more-or-less the mechanisms/systems they work on are both complicated. It's ok that you don't agree with me, but you need not create some innacurate model of my beliefs. Just ask.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
As for cholesterol in heart desease connection, it is not completely missunderstood. Those who have choosen to ignore high CHO, take their own chance.


I think it is pretty clear that the connection between cholesterol and heart disease is poor. I can back up my assertions, can you? (FYI, I won't be moved by a statement of 'doctors say...')

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
Insulin and Bgs fluctuations are of course, damaging, but again, does not explain heart desease and atherosclerosis progression, high blood pressure, and other causes of heart atack and stroke in individuals with normal blood sugar and insulin, and follow up death from MI and stroke.


Ok, suppose that is true, what ya got for me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
Low TRG is just a matter of dietary changes, they fluctuate a lot, and not really damamaging. They can spike after one meal and drop sharply, even if you overdone alcohol night before. High LDL is something that is problematic in terms of lowering, many despite proper diet and exercise, normal BGs, still have high LDL.


But it is not clear that high LDL is really a problem. Data suggests that LDL with low triglycerides is not a problem. It is NOT LDL that is a problem. Or do you have data to suggest otherwise? (And to be clear, we aren't looking for a mere correlation, as suggested in the data, high LDL with concurrent low triglyceride is not a problem.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
Add to the picture other risk factors: family history of heart desease, any inflamatory reponse to autoimmune deseases (psoriasis, lupus, etc.) and any systemic inflamation in general - and here you have, perfect reason for LDL to be problematic.


That suggests that it is NOT LDL that is problematic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
It is the same narrow view that got us in troubles with low fat madness. Before it was all about fat, now it is all about sugar, insulin, and carbs. Let's wait another couple decades, and we may find something esle...


From my side of the fence, it looks like you have a narrow focus on LDL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
As for drs, I still find it facinating with their knowlege, my brain work very well with graphs, mathematical equations, and everything can be logcially derived and calculated. But I would never be able to perform any surgery, even minor, although I know how to give injections, but i am still facinated with drs who save lives and perform miracles on daily basis. The more I read on human biology and biochemistry, the more I realize how hard it is to practice medicine. IMO, mathematically speaking, human body has too many variables to be desribed by few equations and graphs, as mechanism systems and equipment, and does not fit into laws of physics and themodynamics for the most part of it.


Miracles? '..does not fit into laws of physics and thermodymanics'? Well, write up a paper and win the Nobel, seriously. For myself, I don't identify medical doctors as 'miracle workers', in fact from personal experience find that many really aren't all that smart. I'm not the smartest guy, but I'm not the dumbest. Some of the current thinking coming from the 'medical establishment' is comically wrong. Well, it would be comic if it didn't have such dire effects on people's lives.

Kind regards
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Sat, Mar-03-07, 13:38
dina1957 dina1957 is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 1,854
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 194/000/150 Female 5'5"
BF:Not sure
Progress: 441%
Location: Bay Area
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutant

You have a really negative view of what a 'mechanism' is; it's not clear to me that 'mechanism' means that you dont consider the inter-relationship of parts. I imagine most mechanical engineers would disagree.

I have to clarify: when we troubleshoot mechanical system or equipment, we need to isolate one part (or mechanism) at a time to find broken part of failed mechanism, this I beleive all mechanical engineers will agree. I am talking about system that failed to perform. Once the problem is located and broken part or failed mechanism is replaced or fixed, all the parts are put back together to function as integrated system. Unfortuntely, it is not exactly that simple with human body, and problem with western medicine - try to apply principles of mechanical engineering to human body that is not a biomechanical machine but biological system, and is not controlled by a one or two feedback loops, but by hundreds, and all organs interconnected. It can't be broken down into simple parts (although drs use this approach too), and fixing one part mechnically (by-pass surgery) may create hundreds of negative "echos" throught the entire body. same problem is seen in drugs: by treating symptoms of one desease, they create few other.
JMO
Quote:
I think it is pretty clear that the connection between cholesterol and heart disease is poor. I can back up my assertions, can you? (FYI, I won't be moved by a statement of 'doctors say...')

... but the opposite is not clear either.

Quote:
But it is not clear that high LDL is really a problem. Data suggests that LDL with low triglycerides is not a problem. It is NOT LDL that is a problem. Or do you have data to suggest otherwise? (And to be clear, we aren't looking for a mere correlation, as suggested in the data, high LDL with concurrent low triglyceride is not a problem.)

nothing is clear and linear when it comes to CHO and heart desease. it is multifactoral and age does makes difference. What is great for 18 yo, may be detremental for 60 yo.
Quote:
From my side of the fence, it looks like you have a narrow focus on LDL.

I don't focus on anything, I see CAD is a combination of factors, not just LDL as a single cause per se, but given other facrtor that we all agree do play role +high LDL indeed can trigger cardiac event. So I think it is prudent to keep LDL at certain level, but this is JMO. From my side of the fence, it looks like you are fixated on low TRG, which (unless they are really high) have no place in the equation, and choose to ignore LDL all together.
Thanks for the kind words anyway, I got carried away, should not have gotten into this discussion to begin with.
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Sun, Mar-04-07, 11:54
Mutant's Avatar
Mutant Mutant is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 332
 
Plan: DiPasquale Radical Diet
Stats: 301.5/260.2/260 Male 71
BF:25%/?%/15%
Progress: 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
I have to clarify: when we troubleshoot mechanical system or equipment, we need to isolate one part (or mechanism) at a time to find broken part of failed mechanism, this I beleive all mechanical ...<snip>


Ok, it's a complicated mechanism with lots of feedback loops. It isn't clear to me why changing the word form 'mechanism' to 'system' makes all the difference as for the purposes of discussing the human body they seem equivalent. Sure, there are lots of problems with heart bypass but the procedure is seen as a stopgap, to keep someone from dying sooner. Which unfortunately, is not always the case.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
... but the opposite is not clear either.


I'll interpret that as a 'no', you can't back it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
I don't focus on anything, I see CAD is a combination of factors, not just LDL as a single cause per se, but given other facrtor that we all agree do play role +high LDL indeed can trigger cardiac event. So I think it is prudent to keep LDL at certain level, but this is JMO. From my side of the fence, it looks like you are fixated on low TRG, which (unless they are really high) have no place in the equation, and choose to ignore LDL all together.


I am not aware of any definative evidence, could you link it? As far as triglycerides, no, I am not overly attached to them but I do think it provides a good indicator of how your metabolism is running. High triglycerides indicate problems with carb metabolism and for various reasons discussed on this forum make it much more likely to have heart disease. (before you dig up some obscure, rare disease that raises triglycerides, I conceed that point, but for the 99% of all other causes... ) High LDL is a much weaker indicator of this metabolism (a mechanism or a system? ) but certainly is somewhat influenced. High LDL alone doesn't tell you much, e.g. high LDL with concurrent low triglycerides is not a problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dina1957
Thanks for the kind words anyway, I got carried away, should not have gotten into this discussion to begin with.


It would be so much simpler if I could control peoples minds! It will be another 2 years before my first Orbiting Mind Control Laser is launched!

Kind regards
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Tue, Mar-13-07, 23:24
antnagir antnagir is offline
New Member
Posts: 10
 
Plan: Atkins based
Stats: 156/156/143 Male 5'5"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Default

This may seem silly! but how do you count Total Cholesterol?
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Thu, Apr-12-07, 04:35
eddiemcm's Avatar
eddiemcm eddiemcm is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,191
 
Plan: south beach
Stats: 225/170/165 Male 70 inches
BF:
Progress: 92%
Location: Houston,Texas
Default

"First of all choilsetrol is a big myth."
To be more accurate,you could probably say
the subject of cholesterol(not choilsetrol) is
controversial.There is probably no single cause
for CHD-my personal opinion is that inflamation
is PROBABLY main contributer to CHD.
Too many self proclained experts with no data
to back up their claims(probably includes me).
And so it goes...
Eddie
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Wed, Mar-05-08, 16:59
Stahl Stahl is offline
New Member
Posts: 10
 
Plan: South Beach -WITH STATINS
Stats: 265/186/180 Female 69
BF:
Progress: 93%
Default My opinion of the test results

I guess I am confused with some of the advice given in this thread. Using these numbers I would come to a different conclusion??

Total cholesterol: 254
Triglycerides: 293
HDL - 49
LDL - 146

Total cholesterol "reference range" is 120-200

Triglycerides "reference range" is 30-150

HDL "reference range" is 40-100

LDL, Calculated “reference range” is 0-130
< 100 mg/dl optimal for coronary heart disease patients

Chol/HDL ratio “reference range” is 2.0-5.0

Therefore, my read on these numbers are the following:

Total cholesterol of 254 is HIGH
Triglycerides of 293 is HIGH
HDL is GOOD
LDL is HIGH
Chol/HDL Ratio of 5.18 is HIGH

These reference ranges are consistent among several doctors and labs as well as several insurance companies that use these ranges to rate your “health” condition.

My 2 cents worth.

Sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Thu, Mar-06-08, 17:25
CindySue48's Avatar
CindySue48 CindySue48 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,816
 
Plan: Atkins/Protein Power
Stats: 256/179/160 Female 68 inches
BF:38.9/27.2/24.3
Progress: 80%
Location: Triangle NC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stahl
I guess I am confused with some of the advice given in this thread. Using these numbers I would come to a different conclusion??

Total cholesterol: 254
Triglycerides: 293
HDL - 49
LDL - 146

Total cholesterol "reference range" is 120-200

Triglycerides "reference range" is 30-150

HDL "reference range" is 40-100

LDL, Calculated “reference range” is 0-130
< 100 mg/dl optimal for coronary heart disease patients

Chol/HDL ratio “reference range” is 2.0-5.0

Therefore, my read on these numbers are the following:

Total cholesterol of 254 is HIGH
Triglycerides of 293 is HIGH
HDL is GOOD
LDL is HIGH
Chol/HDL Ratio of 5.18 is HIGH

These reference ranges are consistent among several doctors and labs as well as several insurance companies that use these ranges to rate your “health” condition.

My 2 cents worth.

Sorry.

No need to be sorry!! You are entitled to your own opinion. Many of us have been reading about and researching this topic and have come to the conclusion that there is little, if any relationship between cholesterol levels and heart disease....or at least total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol.

HDL should be as high as possible, and triglycerides should be as low as possible. If you keep these levels, the total and LDL are meaningless.

I would agree these numbers are not good, but I think for different reasons. High triglycerides lead to small dense LDL particles, which are believed to be the dangerous ones. Since the triglycerides are elevated, there is a good chance that the LDL particles are smaller and denser than we'd want them to be. Lower the triglycerides and the LDL particles get less dense and more fluffy and less dangerous (or not at all dangerous, possibly even beneficial).

A HDL of 49 is good, but higher would likely be even better.

I'd recommend reading some of the non-mainstream articles about cholesterol and heart disease. THINCS, Dr Joseph Mercola, Dr Michael Eades, Dr Briffa, Dr Davis (Track your plaque) are great resources.

The correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease is very weak....and correlation doesn't mean causation. Remember too, only about 50% of the people with heart disease have elevated cholesterol....the other half have "normal" or low levels.

Oh and one additional thing....the "acceptable" levels for all parameters have changed since the introduction of cholesterol lowering meds. Back when the first recommendations came out, "normal" was a total cholesterol of under 300 (some even said 350). They have been doing a great job of lowering cholesterol numbers.....but not so great in preventing or treating heart disease.
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Thu, Mar-06-08, 18:53
Stahl Stahl is offline
New Member
Posts: 10
 
Plan: South Beach -WITH STATINS
Stats: 265/186/180 Female 69
BF:
Progress: 93%
Default

Some more questions:

"HDL should be as high as possible, and triglycerides should be as low as possible. If you keep these levels, the total and LDL are meaningless."
So in this instance then:

• Total cholesterol of254 is high and LDL is high because HDL is low and triglycerides are high

"Many of us have been reading about and researching this topic and have come to the conclusion that there is little, if any relationship between cholesterol levels and heart disease....or at least total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol."

So having high cholesterol (assuming no relation to heart disease) is OK just from a health perspective?

Does the Chol/HDL Ratio play any importance? Everything I have seen infers this ratio is important and 5.18 is HIGH.

Sorry for all of the questions but I get tested every three months for:
LDL, HDL, Trig, Chol/HLL, A1C, VLDL, Chol, Glucose

Thanks again!
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Fri, Mar-07-08, 16:12
CindySue48's Avatar
CindySue48 CindySue48 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,816
 
Plan: Atkins/Protein Power
Stats: 256/179/160 Female 68 inches
BF:38.9/27.2/24.3
Progress: 80%
Location: Triangle NC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stahl
Some more questions:

"HDL should be as high as possible, and triglycerides should be as low as possible. If you keep these levels, the total and LDL are meaningless."
So in this instance then:

• Total cholesterol of254 is high and LDL is high because HDL is low and triglycerides are high

"Many of us have been reading about and researching this topic and have come to the conclusion that there is little, if any relationship between cholesterol levels and heart disease....or at least total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol."

So having high cholesterol (assuming no relation to heart disease) is OK just from a health perspective?

Does the Chol/HDL Ratio play any importance? Everything I have seen infers this ratio is important and 5.18 is HIGH.

Sorry for all of the questions but I get tested every three months for:
LDL, HDL, Trig, Chol/HLL, A1C, VLDL, Chol, Glucose

Thanks again!

LDL is almost always a calculated number, so yes, if your total is high and your HDL is low, your LDL is going to calculate as high. But, like I said, if your triglycerides are low enough then the actual LDL molecules are going to be big and fluffy.

Yes, having high cholesterol is likely not an issue. If it's 350+, then there could be an issue, but simply looking at the total means nothing. Does the ratio play any importance? Probably yes, because if the ratio is off it's likely because your HDL is too low.

In my opinion it's much more important to look at stress and inflammation. When I get my blood work done, I look at my glucose levels, HDL and triglycerides....and then I look at CRP, sed rate, etc to check inflammation levels. (I have osteoarthritis as well as rheumatoid, so inflammation is something I have to watch.)

Have you done any reading on this subject? Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories explains a lot about how the accepted values, diet recommendations, etc came to be considered "common wisdom". I'd also recommend looking at Dr Davis's site, especially if you're concerned. Read up....and come to your own conclusions!
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Fri, Mar-07-08, 18:58
CindySue48's Avatar
CindySue48 CindySue48 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,816
 
Plan: Atkins/Protein Power
Stats: 256/179/160 Female 68 inches
BF:38.9/27.2/24.3
Progress: 80%
Location: Triangle NC
Default

I was just reading Dr Davis's blog and he addressed a comment that was left about another post. In this post, he talks about the LDL, triglycerides issue:

Quote:
Re: LDL cholesterol of 89 mg/dl at the start. Of course, this is a calculated value, not measured. Because HDL was low and triglycerides high at the start of his program, this means that true LDL--if actually measured--was probably more like 180 to 250 mg/dl, and it was probably nearly all small. So his cardiologist might have advised a helpful treatment, though for the wrong reasons.

The rest can be read here . Dr Davis recommends getting your HDL, LDL and Triglycerides to 60/60/60 to reverse coronary plaque. I agree with him on the HDL and Triglycerides, but figure at those levels LDL is pretty much meaningless...but then again, I'm not trying to reverse plaque, just keep it away.
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Mon, Jul-28-08, 16:52
Den Den is offline
New Member
Posts: 5
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 178.2/150.3/143 Female 5' 5"
BF:
Progress: 79%
Location: Whangarei, New Zealand
Unhappy Cholesterol Numbers

Hi, I'm new here (from New Zealand), only joined yesterday, but have been viewing for a while. I started Atkins in February 2008 and have lost 13kg (28.6lbs), but my cholesterol is high. My figures are: (I don't know how to use the figures you use)

Total Cholesterol 10.7
LDL 8.2
HDL 2.1
Tryglicerides .82 (Low, which is good)
Ratio 5.1

I also have high liver enzymes which I have had for a few years. I hope I've posted this right, never done it before.

Denise
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Tue, Sep-01-09, 14:26
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,187
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

If you read the other thread stickied to the top of the forum it explains why your calculated LDL seems higher on low carb, and how to calculate it more accurately, and why you shouldn't worry about it.
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Mon, Feb-08-10, 16:59
shaycoe3 shaycoe3 is offline
New Member
Posts: 2
 
Plan: unsure yet
Stats: 187/187/160 Female 65 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default hello I am a newbie with questions

My cholesterol is puzzling to me with my triglycerides being 52, My cholesterol at 135, But my HDL is only 49 and my VLDL is 10, LDL 76. I also have a TC:HDL Ratio of 2.76 and a LDL:HDL ratio of 1.55 with a NON HDL C of 86.

My question is: Is it safe to do a low carb diet with numbers this low?



Unsure one
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Tue, Feb-09-10, 09:28
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 45,187
 
Plan: Paleo 99.5%
Stats: 210/170/160 Female 67.5"
BF:
Progress: 80%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Yes. As far as anyone knows there's nothing really wrong with low cholesterol as long as you're otherwise healthy.

An HDL of 49 isn't bad. It could be higher but it's when it is in the 20's that it is worrisome. Eating more saturated fat should bring it up.
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Wed, Feb-10-10, 07:13
shaycoe3 shaycoe3 is offline
New Member
Posts: 2
 
Plan: unsure yet
Stats: 187/187/160 Female 65 inches
BF:
Progress:
Default

thank you very much I was so worried that I was going to lose my memory or something.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cholesterol and understanding it's numbers? Jackie K. Cholesterol, Heart Disease 12 Tue, Feb-14-06 18:48
Study shows total cholesterol doesn't matter and won't protect from heart disease Voyajer LC Research/Media 15 Sat, Dec-04-04 22:15
Newly discovered gene disorder elevates cholesterol Voyajer LC Research/Media 0 Tue, Aug-06-02 17:31
Gary Taubes -- Cardiovascular Disease Voyajer LC Research/Media 4 Fri, Aug-02-02 15:51
A fatty acid in beef and chocolate may not raise cholesterol Voyajer LC Research/Media 0 Wed, Jul-31-02 10:04


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:47.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.