Something is wrong with this picture. If your total cholesterol dropped by 60 points, your triglycerides dropped by almost 400 and your HDL is the same, why would LDL have gone up?

LDL is a calculated value. Here's the formula:

LDL = Total cholesterol - HDL - (Triglycerides x .20)

So let's do the math:

Before LDL = 204 - 24 - 106; LDL = 74

After LDL = 154 - 24 - 29; LDL = 101

The best way to improve your cardiac scores at this point is to increase HDL and statins will NOT do that. If anything, they will lower it.

Yes, your LDL has gone up but you are being penalized by lowering your triglycerides and by not raising HDL (which will not happen while on statins). The formula seems counterproductive to me.

Somewhere, earlier, in that I found where it said under 70 for LDL for a higher risk of heart disease or something to that effect - I was 363 pounds, a1c was 9.0, blood pressure 142/106 and higher at times, triglycerides over 500 - I mean, we can argue numbers and medications all day long but I wasn't in good shape at all. So I guess that is where he's getting the 70 from. I don't know. I mean, I will keep reading for sure. I don't like the things that I read about the statins, but that's pretty much the case with any medication out there on the market these days. People say the same thing about LC - my point is, I don't know what to believe. All if this is too much. I want to get better, I want to get off all this medicine, I want to be normal and not have to worry about all of this stuff for the rest of my life. I'm only 36 years old and I have two kids that are only 3 and 1, and I want to be around for them. Some days I want to throw up my hands, throw the pills away, sit down at the Chinese buffet and say forget - somebody is obviously wrong here. Somebody has an agenda out there and I don't trust any of them!

Ugh, sorry for the rant. It's not direct at any of you, I know you guys are just sharing information. Some days having these old interwebs is just a curse.

deleted post

Understand your frustration, accurate information about cholesterol and statins is the hardest to obtain. That’s why I like the new UK HealthInsight website that started this thread. Read that first article and look around at others. Watch both parts of that Australian documentary..I thought it well done and easy to understand. The somebodies with an agenda are not much different in US, UK, and AUS.

70 was the old “optimal guideline” for LDL, but they basically chucked LDL unless it is very high (which yours was, but no longer is!). The NEW guidelines also focus on Eating Healthy and Exercise. You are doing that by eating VLC, the best way for you to keep FBG under control and lower your A1C (you did that too already!) If you are only 36, do not have heart disease, are reducing your weight, and you have blood pressure and BG under control, I would seriously consider chucking the meds but keeping the LC diet that is doing wonders for you. Note: Add your numbers today into your signature...look how far you have come!
Only head to the Chinese buffet if they have no sugar meat and veg stir-fries and skip the rice.

Here's an editorial in the British Medical Journal supporting low carb over low fat for improving weight, cardiac health, blood sugar, cholesterol and triglycerides. You are doing exactly what this doctor recommends, Bworthey. Why change what has worked so well for you?

http://openheart.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000032.full

Liz - I think you got some numbers off there. My total cholesterol is 154 now, LDL 115, hdl 24, triglycerides 142.

Liz - I'm asking because my LDL went up, he wants it lower - below 70 and he is increasing my simvustatin. I asked what he thought could have caused the increase, if it could have been the increase in fat intake, he thought it could be.

I understand. In a roundabout way I'm questioning the lab results. What I'm doing is showing how the LDL number is derived (it is generally a calculated number, not a direct lab result). If it is calculated then one of those numbers is wrong. Sometimes it is a direct lab result, and perhaps in your case it is, in which case the calculation doesn't matter.

But if it is a calculated number, your LDL is being made worse by improving your total cholesterol and triglycerides. However, LDL is not a good marker for cardiac risk. HDL and triglycerides are what matter.

I've yet to see any convincing proof that cholesterol has anything to do with cardiac risks at all??? no correlation and no causation

Jo xxx

I know. The world would be a wonderful place if there were people that actually knew everything. But, sadly, that isn't the case despite growing up believing there are people who really are "experts" and have solid answers. Part of gaining wisdom is realizing that there are very few solid answers.

Part of the game is being able to evaluate the quality of the data you're given and make good decisions. Not everyone wearing a white coat is well-trained or qualified. And even those who are may be getting tainted information from people/institutions with agendas we don't know about (big drug companies, big agra, etc).

Liz - I see what you did now. I was looking at the numbers wrong. Sorry!

Was wondering if it was possible to get my numbers where doc is saying based on formula - found a calculator. It is. I wasn't sure it was. Triglycerides would be around 80, hdl around 77, total around 157 - that was putting LDL at 60 something I think. I dunno. I just gotta keep going day by day, meal by meal right now I guess.

What your doctor wants for LDL is just plain wrong. The new guidelines are only four months old; I understand it is hard to keep up unless he is a cardiac specialist, but focus has moved away from LDL to the 'whole lifestyle'. Don't worry, the drug companies will still find a way to put you on stains but LDL is not the guideline trigger anymore. Anything under a 190 LDL is healthy.

With Low Carb, the two numbers that do matter can improve dramatically. My HDL is over 100 and Trigs around 30. My LDL is 155 and that's fine with my doctors. I never had a low HDL but it has climbed steadily the past four years, due to low carb eating.

I've clicked through the links that you posted earlier and I haven't seen the actual numbers or ranges that it gives. Does it actually show these "new" guidelines?

One I just read posted on the mayoclinic website, must be the old info, is where I'm seeing the 70, etc. it does say under 130, I believe is ideal. 70 it says is for those at a higher risk - some of those risk factors included high blood pressure and T2. Now I haven't had a stroke or heart attack in the past so that doesn't count against me of course but i have the other two for sure and I'm certainly still overweight. I dunno. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around all of this. Id call him and talk to him but he was headed out of town after my appointment. So I guess I have some time to do my research.

Bworthey-- If I were you, I'd order the (almost) brand new Cholesterol Clarity that JEY referred to a few posts back. It has some of the newest and most accurate information and puts cholesterol in the context of a low carb diet. Here's a link: http://www.amazon.com/Cholesterol-C...esterol+clarity

and here's one of the reviews:

The evidence continues to accumulate that cholesterol is not the villain it is made out to be, but is actually part of your body's defense system against the real killers: chronic inflammation, the lack of good, natural fats, and stress. Dr. Dwight Lundell, one of the 29 experts interviewed by author Jimmy Moore in Cholesterol Clarity, noted that in the absence of inflammation, "Cholesterol would move freely throughout the body as nature intended."

Mark Sisson, another contributor, said, "Cholesterol is one of the most important molecules in the human body: we would die very quickly without it. It's an integral part of cell membranes. It's involved in the creation of vitamin D and in the formation of many important sex hormones, it is necessary for the production of bile, which is critical to our ability to emulsify and digest fats." Jimmy Moore points out another of its many health benefits, "Cholesterol is a major line of defense when your immune system comes under attack. So lowering cholesterol levels artificially with drugs could make you more susceptible to germs or bacteria, wreaking havoc on your health." Cholesterol is also essential for proper brain function, as the brain contains more cholesterol than any organ in the body. Both estrogen and testosterone are made out of cholesterol (is it a coincidence that the same companies that sell statins sell Viagra and Cialis?).

Here is a eye-opening quote from Dr. Malcolm Kendrick: "There is absolutely no correlation between saturated fat intake, cholesterol levels, and heart disease. The most accurate research looking at this issue in different countries is the MONICA (Monitoring of Trends and Determinants in Cardiovascular Disease) study that started in the mid-1980s and is run by the World Health Organization.