Bloodwork Results

Nicole9187

I recently went to the doctor for a physical and my blood tests results came back. So my cholesterol total was 188, triglycerides 64, HDL 53 and my LDL cholesterol was 122 which she says is high. She was happy with the HDL, but worried about the high LDL cholesterol. I'm sure I had similar blood draws before I started Keto (sep 2013 but I took a six month hiatus in 2014 after I got engaged.) So I will call and see if I can get those results for comparison (this is a new dr.) Anyways, she was not OVERLY concerned, but I do not know enough, so I'm wondering if I should change anything that I am doing. I do however have a vitamin D deficiency, everything else (potassium, glucose, etc) were great.

sbom1

Unless the lab uses a different standard, 122 is barely elevated so I wouldn't worry or change anything just based on that number, especially since the doc isn't.

FIT_Goat

If your LDL wasn't directly measured and was LDL-calc instead, you probably don't have a 122 LDL. It is fairly well known that the Friedewald formula most labs use is wrong and gives erroneously high results when trigs are under 100.

Putting your numbers in, I get 122 on the Friedewald formula (which means they almost certainly used it and didn't directly measure). I get 105 on the Iranian formula -- which is probably more accurate for low trigs, although nothing beats actually getting them measured directly. Until you do, everything is just a prediction based on statistical norms.

Here's the calculator I used: http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~geoff36/LDL_mg.htm

Nicole9187

Thank you!

dawlfin318

Also , size of the ldl particles is important. If your lg fluffy particles are good and the small ones are not. Read or listen to YouTube (Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek).

dawlfin318

dawlfin318 wrote: »

Also , size of the ldl particles is important. Your lg fluffy particles are good and the small ones are not. Read or listen to YouTube (Stephen Phinney and Jeff Volek).

Dragonwolf

FIT_Goat wrote: »

If your LDL wasn't directly measured and was LDL-calc instead, you probably don't have a 122 LDL. It is fairly well known that the Friedewald formula most labs use is wrong and gives erroneously high results when trigs are under 100.

Putting your numbers in, I get 122 on the Friedewald formula (which means they almost certainly used it and didn't directly measure). I get 105 on the Iranian formula -- which is probably more accurate for low trigs, although nothing beats actually getting them measured directly. Until you do, everything is just a prediction based on statistical norms.

Here's the calculator I used: http://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~geoff36/LDL_mg.htm

Huh. I did not know about the Iranian formula. I mentioned to my doctor about the Friedewald formula breaking down at low trig numbers, but she basically said that it only does that with really high trigs. :eyeroll:

I kind of want to get my LDL measured directly to see which is more accurate for me (Friedewald says 139, Iranian says 123).

OP -- regardless, LDL is a poor indicator of CVD risk, anyway. HDL and HDL to total cholesterol ratio are better indicators. Your Total to HDL is 3.53, putting you damn close to ideal (3.5 or lower is considered ideal).

If your doctor keeps pushing you about your LDL, challenge them with a direct measure and LDL particle size and count tests. These tests will give you a more accurate indication of whether your LDL is "at risk," though according to http://www.hughcalc.org/chol.php you're at optimal or near optimal for everything except HDL, which it considers "normal" (but it seems to have a higher threshold between "normal" and "optimal" than the labs use).