Work health fair results - mixed
cstehansen
Posts: 1,984 Member
We had a health fair at work today where there was some limited biometrics. My primary reason for adopting this WOE was to reverse my diabetes. From that standpoint, my fasting BG has dropped from being around 110-115 regularly in August to being 82 this morning. A1c was 6.2 in August. My next check is not until November, but given the significant changes in both fasting and PP BG readings, I am expecting an improvement.
The other good part is I am down about 8 pounds since August - almost all of which was in the first 3 weeks. I don't think I need to lose any more as they measured my body fat at 13.6%. As a middle aged man with a desk job, I don't think it is realistic to get much below that.
The negative was with the cholesterol. I am not sure exactly how negative because they only measure total and HDL. HDL was close to the same as August 61 now vs 64 then. However my total jumped from 183 to 246. I wish I knew what the triglycerides were because in August they were only 50. From all I have read, this is the most important lipid number.
The second most important is VLDL which was 10 in August out of total LDL of 109.
By my calculations, if my triglyceride numbers tripled all the way up to the top of the acceptable range, that would make my total LDL 157 which is well over acceptable.
I have seen several places where blood cholesterol is not the boogie man it was made out to be, but there are still components of it (Tris and VLDL) which are very bad, which has me a bit concerned about this heading into my appointment next month.
I don't trust these small portable analyzers as much as the labs, but, this is still a big jump for 2 months and the BG was consistent with my glucometer and the HDL was consistent with my last 2 sets of lab work.
The other good part is I am down about 8 pounds since August - almost all of which was in the first 3 weeks. I don't think I need to lose any more as they measured my body fat at 13.6%. As a middle aged man with a desk job, I don't think it is realistic to get much below that.
The negative was with the cholesterol. I am not sure exactly how negative because they only measure total and HDL. HDL was close to the same as August 61 now vs 64 then. However my total jumped from 183 to 246. I wish I knew what the triglycerides were because in August they were only 50. From all I have read, this is the most important lipid number.
The second most important is VLDL which was 10 in August out of total LDL of 109.
By my calculations, if my triglyceride numbers tripled all the way up to the top of the acceptable range, that would make my total LDL 157 which is well over acceptable.
I have seen several places where blood cholesterol is not the boogie man it was made out to be, but there are still components of it (Tris and VLDL) which are very bad, which has me a bit concerned about this heading into my appointment next month.
I don't trust these small portable analyzers as much as the labs, but, this is still a big jump for 2 months and the BG was consistent with my glucometer and the HDL was consistent with my last 2 sets of lab work.
0
Replies
-
You burned fat and lost bodyweight. Most cholesterol tests aren't fully accurate until you have maintained your body weight and fat composition for 6 months. So the heebee jeebees withstanding, as referenced, you'll likely have better results in another month or two depending on timing of the test...just by the nature of time passing, and not just the numbers you don't have.
Additionally, if the cholesterol results were not done fasting, they aren't even comparable as apples to apples with your previous results...
I would not worry about the changes until you can verify, personally, though I know that is easier said that done.
EDITED TO ADD: Also, what you ate in the last 1-5 days can affect that result, too. That's why an average is a better picture of true cholesterol health than a single snapshot.2 -
Where's that post by @GaleHawkins showing how all his "bad" numbers jumped up after adopting keto only to shoot way back down months later. ??
Just because LDL goes way up doesn't mean it's VLDL. So without that info, I just wouldn't be able to worry about it.
I know triglycerides can go up during weight loss. I don't know how long it takes for it to come back down but having lower trigs is a sign that the body is using fat effectively and that's why it goes hand in hand with LCHF. But, it may not show up that way for a while.
I honestly don't know why they bother testing at all if the aren't looking at the stuff that actually matters. It just raises even more questions than you had before.2 -
I did not find the link with the post but found a copy of a post I had emailed myself late Aug:
To manage my arthritis pain the doctors wanted me to start on Enbrel injects two year ago. I elected to instead cut out sugar and all grains because of the known possible side effects of Enbrel even the $3,000 a month cost would have been covered.
My action two years ago without my then understanding meant I had gone to a WOE (Way Of Eating) that was LCHF (Low Carb High Fat).
Pre LCHF (two years ago) labs were:
Total Cholesterol - 226
HDL - 38
LDL - 146
Triglycerides - 209
9 months of LCHF (one year ago) labs were:
Total Cholesterol - 404
HDL - 56
LDL - 323
Triglycerides - 121
17 months of LCHF (Aug 2016) labs were:
Total Cholesterol - 257
HDL - 63
LDL - 186
Triglycerides - 36
The new doctor said keep doing what I am doing because it is working and that now Total Cholesterol has to be at >290 before they consider statins, etc. She was not hype pro LCHF but she said the numbers proved it was working for me. I think my numbers helped her better understand the first year of LCHF sending Cholesterol through the roof is NORMAL for some. I refused statins last year because I knew it was normal to shot up because the body takes a while to stop producing high cholesterol that is produced to protect against high inflammation.
Two years ago I think there were several posters on MFP that thought LCHF was actually unhealthy WOE but I think most know otherwise now hence less attacks on this WOE for example.
My personal goal for Total Cholesterol is 200-240 since at my age it gets the best odds of preventing my premature death but 257 is not far from that protective range. My ratios are now awesome. A1C was 5.1
1 -
It's normal for weight loss to spike LDL and trig levels because metabolizing fat releases fatty acids into your blood. Even if your weight is stable, if your measurements are reducing, then you are still metabolizing fat and will still see a spike.1
-
I am not going to change my WOE based on numbers from a work health fair. Had I lost significant weight, I don't think that one number would have caught me off guard so much. I likely have changed body composition a bit if that BF reading was correct as I had been up around 19-20% and an 8 lb loss in weight is not enough to have changed it that much. Just a bit more anxious about my results in November than I was. My sole focus has been on BG and it has improved quite a bit. As for a trade off, I would rather have high cholesterol than high BG and insulin as the science seems to be a lot more solid that those will cause more harm.2
-
cstehansen wrote: »As for a trade off, I would rather have high cholesterol than high BG and insulin as the science seems to be a lot more solid that those will cause more harm.
I too, prefer lower glucose. Having thought about this for a while, I plan on having a Calcium Score and an LDL particle count done sometime next year. According to the Establishment, you can't win for losing, unless you take Statins. and.. that is not happening until I get more information once my weight settles down (13 pounds left to go to hit 145 lbs.)2
This discussion has been closed.