Cholestero has gone up???

[ColinFerguson]

Has anyone experienced their cholesterol go up with this plan???
I'm 48yo male and 87 kg. Reasonably fit (weight training 6 days, swim 3 days, and train in martial arts 2-3 times a week). I started Protein Power in January looking to lower cholesterol. In Febuary it was 5.8mmol/l (recommended range is 3.6-6.9) and then in early May it was 7.5mmol/l. Not what I was hoping for!!!
HDL was 1.85 (which is cool as it should be above 1.0) but LDL was 4.99 (which should be below 2.0 - not so cool).

I've been pretty generous in eating eggs (2 each morning) and not at all strict about cutting off fat from meat - but I was under the impression it wasn't critical.

Any thoughts?

[maxlharris]

Hrm....

The most important thing is the ratios... I don't have time (or my books handy) to figure them, but perhaps yours improved over the time. Oh yeah, I can't figure your ratios without your triglyceride numbers.

Another thought... if your ratios have gotten better, specifically the one that talks about LDL particle size, it might could be that you had mean tight guys before (the dangerous ones) and loose fluffy ones now (the ones you don't worry about) and the test methodology is your problem, not your actual results.

I'm sure someone with more time and all will give you a fuller explanation.

[Mitra]

Welcome, Colin :).

Here's a quote from Dr Mike Eades - he's replying to a woman who asked a question in his blog, so some of what he says is referring to her specific details.

The key points, though are that lipid levels aren't sufficiently accurate as a predictor that you should get too worried. As Max said, to interpret the details a bit more needs the triglyceride number, too - if your triglycerides are low, then you can have confidence that your LDL is the "good" type.

As you know from reading this blog, I’m not a real believer in the lipid hypothesis of heart disease. Having said that, if there is any part of the whole hypothesis that I think is even part way valid it would be that HDL cholesterol is protective. And probably that small, dense LDL is more easily oxidized and may contribute to cardiovascular disease. It’s obvious that your HDL cholesterol is high, very high, in fact, so this should be protective.

You can go to the trouble and expense (it cost about $200 the last time I checked) to get your LDL analyzed as to particle size. There have been enough studies done now showing that triglycerides are a surrogate marker for LDL particle size–high triglycerides indicate small dense LDL; low triglycerides mean large fluffy, type A, LDL–that I don’t bother with the expensive test any longer. I simply look at triglycerides, and yours are certainly low. (You could request an ApoB test, which will show how many LDL particles you have; if there aren’t very many and you have a lot of LDL, then you’ll know that the particle size is large. ApoB is a less costly lab test than the direct measurement of particle size.) Even the folks who are firm believers in the LDL-cholesterol-is-bad theory, don’t particularly fear the large type A LDL particles.

[ColinFerguson]

Thanks for that... some extra numbers for you if you get time to play with ratios (it's all double dutch to me?).

Trigglycerides went up slightly from 0.6 in Feb to 0.8in May (should be between 0.3 and 4.0) - so up marginally, but still in the lower band.

[martin52]

Hi :)

I have similar problem, but other personal conditions. I'm 31 year male, little bit underweight (175cm/63kg). Also my cholesterol ratios are in normal ranges (Total/HDL 3.7, LDL/HDL 2.6) But have high total-C 270 and LDL-C 190. HDL is 73 and trigs 78, quite good. My doctor insist I do something about it. She doesn't want to put me on meds because is aware of side effects, but probably will do it if the numbers won't come better next time (re-check scheduled in 3 month). Besides, recently I was diagnosed begining osteoarthritis in left leg & shoulder. Currently i'm not doing specific LC plan, just some carb restriction (in range 150-200g / day). I was searching the web for methods to lower LDL-C, and found some:

1) more monounsat fat, lower sat - olive oil etc.
2) 1/4 to 1/2 cups nuts (especialy almonds) per day - should lower LDL by 10-20 mg/dl
3) ground flaxseeds or oat bran (3 tbsp/day) another 10-20 mg/dl
4) alcohol 1-2 serving (rises HDL->better ratios)
5) niacin 1-2 g per day - not available in my country :(
6) vitamin D 2000-6000 IU / day (only ups effect of other metods) - that's 10 capsules of standard dose per day - money killer :(
7) fish oil 6 g / day (reduces trigs so Total-C will go bit lower)
8) exercise - don't know how much effect?
9) lecithin - questionable

Do you know other methods to keep the doctor happy? And of course me, because I would like to have Tot-C in the recomended range 180-220.
Will going totaly low carb rise cholesterol even higher? And don't want to loose weight :) better gain some (this would imply lots of cals from fat). Or suggestions for osteoarthritis?

Thanks for help.

[Gaelen]

Martin52, 150-200g carbs is not low carb. It's not even really carb restriction unless you were eating in excess of 200 g carbs on a regular basis.

Yes, low carb can improve your lipid profile, but that's consuming 30-55g effective carb grams (carbs minus fiber). Yes, you can lose weight on an eating plan unless you consume enough fats--and as you discovered, eating monounsaturated fats can actually improve aspects of your lipid profile.

I would strongly suggest that you check out the actual books and make informed menu choices based on the science you'll find in "Protein Power," and "The Protein Power Lifeplan," which should both tell you more about how truly controlling your carb intake in the presence of adequate protein and fats can improve your lipid profile.

And yes, it can take some time. And there ARE people who can't get their total numbers into an ideal range without meds, even when they do control their diet--it's not all about diet. Your genes do factor into your results, too.

Hope this helps.

[martin52]

Thanks for your answer.
I know I'm not lowcarbing, but <200g carbs is half of what I was eating before. After 1 year this has changed my lipid profile in a way similar to low carb (LDL+HDL up, TRIG down, better ratios). I'm considering going full LC. Just have to replace saturated fat with monounsat for better numbers :)

[EmilyD-G]

This issue is the reason I have sought out this forum. I have been following the plan very closely for 6 months and was expecting to see great numbers because I feel so great.

Unfortunately, this was not the case. Here are the details: TC 206; LDL:141; HDL:55; Triglycerides: 48. While I've always had low TC, it was over 200 for the first time in my life. My HDL was up only slightly.

I will repeat Colin's question, should I cut down on fats? OR should I just trust that my LDLs are fluffy and that I shouldn't worry too much about it.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

EmilyD-G

[LowCHO]

I think you already know the answer to your question about LDL and saturated fats have a lot to do with it. Sounds like you aren't suffering from x-syndrome so you can add a little oat bran in your diet. The oat bran inhibits your liver from producing cholesterol. You can take CholestOff to block dietary cholesterol. Limit your saturated fats to 15g/day.
Read "The New 8-Week Cholesterol Cure". My cholesterol went from 210 to 140! LDL 80 and HDL 47.
Good luck.

[CARBFREAK]

I am very new to this site but I to have a question about good and bad cholesterol...My tests showed my bad cholesterol and trigs looked better than my doctors who had been doing low carb for 3 yrs. He was amazed...but then he said my good cholesterol is dangerously low....he said it was I believe 32 and should be 42 or something like that....I need to understand more about good and bad cholesterol which brings me to this WOE.. He said to add olive oil and advacados and nuts to my diet...which I already eat????

[maxlharris]

Thanks for your answer.
I know I'm not lowcarbing, but <200g carbs is half of what I was eating before. After 1 year this has changed my lipid profile in a way similar to low carb (LDL+HDL up, TRIG down, better ratios). I'm considering going full LC. Just have to replace saturated fat with monounsat for better numbers :)

You should read the Protein Power Life Plan. Specifically Chapter 4, "Cholesterol: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly". You can really just read pages 107-109, which sums up the entire chapter pretty efficiently.

Sat fat is not your problem. 150-200g is probably your problem. You might also be genetically predisposed. If your ratios are good, don't worry so much, unless you have other cardiac risk factors (and maybe not even then).

Unfortunately, this was not the case. Here are the details: TC 206; LDL:141; HDL:55; Triglycerides: 48. While I've always had low TC, it was over 200 for the first time in my life. My HDL was up only slightly.

I will repeat Colin's question, should I cut down on fats? OR should I just trust that my LDLs are fluffy and that I shouldn't worry too much about it.


"The mortality risk is lowest in people with total cholesterol levels between 160 and 220..." Dr & Dr Eades, Protein Power Life Plan.

Let's see: TRG/HDL - 48/55 = <1. You're fluffy. If it makes you happy, worry about it. If you really want some comfort, on page 92 of PPLP, about halfway down (this is the trade paperback edition), they relate the "very rare" instance where someone doesn't see a change or has a rise after doing PP(LP) and they get in touch with the docs. The example they use is a person who started at 210, LDL 125, HDL 25, TRG 300+. They complain when they go to 230, LDL 162, HDL 50, TRG 90. The Eades say they would cheer such a change, because the ratios are so much better.

Last thing, remember how a serum cholesterol test is done. They take your blood, they spin out the HDL and the TRG, then calculate your LDL from what's left. If you are big and fluffy, LDL-wise, you tend to read higher. It's a volume thing.

You could still worry if you want to.

I am very new to this site but I to have a question about good and bad cholesterol...My tests showed my bad cholesterol and trigs looked better than my doctors who had been doing low carb for 3 yrs. He was amazed...but then he said my good cholesterol is dangerously low....he said it was I believe 32 and should be 42 or something like that....I need to understand more about good and bad cholesterol which brings me to this WOE.. He said to add olive oil and advacados and nuts to my diet...which I already eat????

It's all about your ratios. You should read PPLP. You'll be fine. And you'll probably understand cholesterol better than your doc.

[bluejay111]

What's wrong with cholesterol tests? Here is what was in the book, The Cholesterol Conspiracy, by Russell Smith, PhD:

Paraphrased-- "The Accuracy of Cholesterol Tests

In 1958, serum from the same blood sample was sent to 5 different reputable labs. This was done with 3 separate samples. Lab results from the first sample ranged from 311 to 598. Second sample varied from 183 to 296; third sample ranged from 172 to 312. So the question is raised...has testing become better since 1958. The answer is no. In 1985, the College of American Pathologists sent to 5004 hospitals and labs a cholesterol sample with a known value of 262.6. Results from all of these reputable labs varied from 101 to 524, which is greatly worse than what was found in the tests in '58. Another recent study compared two common cholesterol testing instruments with the equipment of the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. 377 samples were tested, which resulted in 13.5% and 20% differences from the 2 instruments with the NHLBI instrument. And yet another study was done with the Center for Disease Control showed that 52% of 130 labs varied unacceptably from the average. Few labs can accurately measure the HDL. Compare these sophisticated, expensive instruments with the finger stick instruments increasingly being found in doctor's offices, and the results are even worse. The two methods of checking cholesterol are chemical and enzymatic. The chemical method is much more expensive and complicated. The enzymatic method is cheaper and more simple. Most labs use the enzymatic method, and it is also the most grossly inaccurate. The 1988 CAP survey showed that nearly half of the nation's 15,000 private labs regularly give out inaccurate cholesterol results. And just about everyone, except doctors and the public, know that cholesterol testing is very poor. Yet despite knowing how inaccurate cholesterol tests are, the Alliance (NHLBI, AHA, and another medical group I forgot which one....) still insists that everyone be screened for cholesterol, and to be put on cholesterol lowering drugs.

Several factors can affect cholesterol results. Stress...being afraid of getting blood drawn, will affect results. How long the tourniquet is on the arm will affect results. How long the serum sits on the blood cells affects results, or if the serum sits overnight in the fridge, will affect results. If the blood tube wasn't filled all the way affects results. The technique and precision of the person testing the serum sample affects results. And last, but not least, the equipment itself affects results. (end)

Here is a paraphrase from Mary Enig, in Know Your Fats to give perspective about dietary fat and cholesterol: blood volume in a person is 5-7 liters (50-70 dL). There is on average about 200 mg/dl of circulating cholesterol, which is the eqivalent to 10,000 to 14,000 mg of circulating cholesterol. If one eats 400 mg of cholesterol a day, and it is absorbed 50% (which is all that is absorbed from dietary cholesterol), that adds only the equivalent of 200 mg of cholesterol into that 10,000 to 14,000 mg already circulating in the blood. It can then be calculated that the 200 mg of absorbed dietary cholesterol will only increase total cholesterol from 200 to 203-204. This amount is so small it can't even be accurately measured. (end)

[Dharmalisa]

I am very new to this site but I to have a question about good and bad cholesterol...My tests showed my bad cholesterol and trigs looked better than my doctors who had been doing low carb for 3 yrs. He was amazed...but then he said my good cholesterol is dangerously low....he said it was I believe 32 and should be 42 or something like that....I need to understand more about good and bad cholesterol which brings me to this WOE.. He said to add olive oil and advacados and nuts to my diet...which I already eat????

Some specific things are known to raise HDL cholesterol. One of the best is saturated fat. Also, exercise, and red wine.

I partake in all of those things regularly. My HDL last time I checked was 94.

It's just so amazing how many times you see people recommending to NOT eat saturated fat for high cholesterol, when it is the very thing that raises HDL which is what we all want!!

[maxlharris]

On HDL: Specifically weight lifting to raise HDL. I'm thinking cardio doesn't do it.

On Sat Fat: It's yummy. And if you need to justify eating that prime rib and can't get around it being high in sat fat, 49% of the fat in beef is monounsaturated, which is also supposed to be pretty good for you, regardless of whether you are a LF or a LC advocate.

[Alex]

In my case, I don't really know whether my cholesterol has gone up or down. Three years ago, total cholesterol was 208, HDL was excellent, LDL was only slightly high, and triglycerides were 55. About three months ago, non-fasting, right after weight training, as measured at the grocery store with a portable device, total cholesterol was 169, HDL was sixty-something, triglycerides were below 50, and LDL was not able to be measured.

A couple weeks ago, fasting, first thing in the morning, as measured by the lab at the hospital, total cholesterol was 254, HDL 63, LDL 181, triglycerides 52.

I was under the impression that total cholesterol levels don't fluctuate very much, and since my diet did not change between the 169 reading and the 254 reading, I'm thinking one of the total cholesterol numbers must be wrong. Thing is, the HDL numbers are about the same, and the trig numbers are probably pretty close, so there's a certain degree of accuracy about both tests. As much as I believe that it really doesn't matter, health-wise, whether my total cholesterol is 169 or 254, the ingrained cultural conditioning has me worried. Grrrrrrrrrr....