Latest Labs-Not as Happy as I'd Like to be

AshStout83

Hi, low-carbers. I had my annual wellness screening today and I'm not pleased with my LDL number. It jumped 29 points since last August. I'd like your thoughts. The only change I've made is increasing my cream consumption. I use around a pint every two days. I used to measure one tablespoon, but I started just pouring it in. I've also noticed my body odor is back. I use men's deodorant and I smell a few hours after I shower. I have to sniff my armpit to notice it, but I definitely stink again. I know cholesterol rises when we're burning fat, so that may be part of it.

Here are my numbers from today. Here are my numbers from last August.
TC-196 TC-165
HDL-73 HDL-71
TRG-67 TRG-63
LDL-110 LDL-81
TC/HDL Ratio-2.7 TC/HDL Ratio-2.3
GLU-88 GLU-82

retirehappy

This is your TRIG/HDL : 0.9178082191780822
Your LDL is under 150.
Glu is under 100.

You will be hard pressed to find many around here with any better.
You can tell you are burning fat.

I'm not seeing any real problems here.
KCKO

AshStout83

Thanks. I was just surprised by the large increase in LDL. I haven’t noticed any new weight loss, but the BO made me wonder if that was the cause. I’m not trying to lose anymore. I reached my goal last year, so I expected my numbers to be better or the same, not worse. I appreciate your input.

Keto_Vampire

I've had the same Issue with LDL getting out of hand in the past; culprit turned out to be simply not measuring my fats (strangely enough, my HDL: TC ratio was still ideal, TC > 300mg/dL, HDL ~ 125mg/dL). Triglycerides indicate you are carbohydrate limited for sure

I've compromised fat consumption getting TC just under 200mg/dL but HDL now only around 80+mg/dL (no impact on triglycerides as I expected). Overall, your LDL is still rather good (the most stringent LDL goal is around 70mg/dL....based on other factors (CVDx, diabetes, age,etc.) goals cut offs are usually 130mg/dL and 100mg/dL for LDL.

It's a very grey area as to whether you NEED to make an intervention. Ratio is still good and normal variance from cholesterol draws could easily put you back in goal range

AshStout83

Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and experience. I appreciate your insight.

macchiatto

Mine increased on keto, too. My dr hasn't seemed concerned yet, fwiw. I have new blood work and wellness visit next week; curious to see where I'm at now. I haven't been keto most of the past year until just recently, but mostly somewhat low carb, so I'm not sure what to expect. If LDL continues to climb I'll ask about the test I've heard referred to on here that checks the particles (the fluffy ones are less dangerous, or something? )

If you're interested, here are mine for comparison.
10/30/14 (eating low to moderate carb/low fat/higher protein)
Weight: approx 137 lbs
Fasted labs:
Total cholesterol: 144
Triglycerides: 80
HDL: 59
VLDL: 16
LDL: 69
LDL/HDL ratio: 1.2
Glucose: 81
A1C: 5.4

3/22/16 (after 4 months of eating keto)
Weight: approx 131
Fasted labs:
Total cholesterol: 174
Triglycerides: 68
HDL: 75
VLDL: 13
LDL: 85
LDL/HDL ratio: 0.882
Glucose: 80
A1C: 5.5

3/20/17 (after 15 months of eating LCHF, often keto)
Weight: 133
Fasted labs:
Total cholesterol: 187
Triglycerides: 60
HDL: 73
VLDL:12
LDL: 102
LDL/HDL ratio: 1.4
Glucose: 91
A1C: 4.9!!!

cstehansen

Please read this:

https://breaknutrition.com/does-cholesterol-function-to-harm-or-help-us/

Cholesterol is not your enemy. The ratios are good predictors. If you are able to get a particle size count done, then finding out the size of the LDL may be useful. However, your numbers look really really good.

The reason 200 was picked for a number to keep your total below is because it is the mean. This means half of people who get their cholesterol checked have above 200 and half are below. There was nothing magical about that number in terms of risk.

In fact, when studied, it was found that roughly half of all first time heart attack suffers had cholesterol at or below 200 meaning there was exactly 0 correlation between high cholesterol and heart attack.

cstehansen

Here is a peer reviewed journal article that is hard to argue with:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747394/

I know there are a ton of opinions floating around, which is why I do my best to rely on actual science journals and studies and not just some blog somewhere.

This link is for a review of the available studies combined into a single report (meta-analysis). This has a chart which breaks it down nice and simple. To be "low risk" for a woman you want your total/HDL ratio to be less than 4.0 and your LDL/HDL ratio to be less than 2.0.

Your total/HDL ratio is 2.7 - well below the target of 4.0.

Your LDL/HDL ratio is 1.51 - again, well below the target of 2.0.

Unfortunately, you did not get the ApoB and ApoA-I testing. That is not as commonly run. However, the fact your trigs are low would indicate you would do well here also as the ApoB/ApoA-I has to do with the size of the particles and trigs are a pretty reliable indicator there. The more trigs, the smaller the particles, and in this case small is bad.

I am looking for the paper that came out after this one which looked at the trig/HDL ratio and saw it had the best correlation with a ratio below 2 being low risk, over 4 high risk and between 2 & 4 some risk. Yours is 0.92, so again well below the mark you want it to be.

You have to remember that the medical reasoning to control total cholesterol and LDL both use the exact same science that said eating fat is bad for you and sugar is harmless. We all know that has been proven false. If you comb through the medical research of randomized controlled trials, you will see the high cholesterol = heart disease hypothesis has also been proven false.

AshStout83

Thank you, Macchiatto. I am interested and I appreciate you sharing your numbers and advice.

AshStout83

Excellent information, cstehansen. I really appreciate the time you took to share all of that with me. Thank you!

ladipoet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNfjkTyBUdQ

Watch the video. Sometimes the timelines we have in our head to resolve an issues do not coincide with the timelines our bodies need to correct the issue. My body took 4 years to get there.

AshStout83

Thank you, ladipoet. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge with me.

GaleHawkins

ladipoet wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNfjkTyBUdQ

Watch the video. Sometimes the timelines we have in our head to resolve an issues do not coincide with the timelines our bodies need to correct the issue. My body took 4 years to get there.

Thanks so much for this link to a short clip I was needed to see again.

ladipoet

No problem my peeps!