Cholesterol worry
Options
SlimBride2Be
Posts: 315 Member
The doctor just rang to say my cholesterol was 5.7mmol and he was a little concerned. He said 'it's not bad but it could be lower'. He said he would repeat the test in 3 months but in the meantime I should google a low fat diet and follow that.
What do you all think? I have no other blood test to compare it against.
What do you all think? I have no other blood test to compare it against.
0
Replies
-
If you have nothing earlier to compare it to, then just use it as a baseline and see how it changes in 3 months.
If he's measuring total cholesterol, there's very little evidence supporting any problem at that level, especially for women.0 -
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i
To get you started.
Personally, I do not worry about my cholesterol. I refuse to take statins, and I refuse to believe a low fat diet will do anything but harm me at this point. I have known people with high serum cholesterol who lived into their 90s with no heart disease and someone who had low cholesterol but had a stroke anyway.0 -
I have not had any kind of tests, but the butter in my coffee is making me nervous.....so I understand your hesitation. Did you tell your doctor you were following a LCHF lifestyle?0
-
If you don't have a baseline from a date before your low carb diet, showing that your cholesterol is dramatically on the rise, and you feel that it's working for you, I'd say the doctor hasn't given you much reason to change course.0
-
Also, as I've discovered, LDL can mean different things (sizes, concentrations, and all that). My HDL (good one) went up, my trigs went down, and my LDL ("bad" one) went up. But I've also found out that during rapid weight loss (I think that's anything more than a pound a month or something), it can completely skew your numbers. If you are eating on plan, I'd look for another comparison test before you really start to worry. There are way too many factors to arbitrarily make chances right now. Besides the "eat low fat to lower your cholesterol theory" is very outdated.
If it "isn't bad but could be better" I'd leave it be until you have more data. Your trigs/HDL ratio is said to be far more important than the LDL and total numbers.0 -
KnitOrMiss wrote: »If you are eating on plan, I'd look for another comparison test before you really start to worry. There are way too many factors to arbitrarily make chances right now.
This!
Also, many forum members have gotten cholesterol results only to find it's the very quick 'n' dirty numbers that don't tell the whole story. If you didn't request the full set of numbers, chances are the doctor isn't seeing the whole picture.0 -
The numbers can be so easily skewed anyway, even with your last meal. Not having anything else to compare it to I'd not be too concerned.0
-
Total cholesterol is fairly meaningless as it's made up of both good and bad kinds, so you can't tell what proportion is good from the total number. A good book on this is cholesterol clarity by Jimmy Moore.0
-
Plus, I think while you are losing weight it tends to be higher as your body is generally releasing lipids. Get it done again when you have been maintaining a while.0
-
Do research. A low fat diet will only increase total cholesterol and lower HDL, while raising triglycerides. Besides there is no data that proves that cholesterol harms you in any way but there is data that shows in lowers heart risks.0
-
A doctor saying "it could be lower" is kinda like a doctor saying, "You could lose another ten pounds" all of these numbers and ranges are approximations, and I wouldn'y worry about cholesterol the same as I wouldn't worry about being 130lbs vs 120.0
-
Thank you people. To be honest he sounded rushed and inexperienced (I don't know this doctor but "Google a low fat diet"?!) so I'm going to take his advice with a pinch of salt.
I slept on the news and this is my plan of action. He wants me to repeat the test in 3 months. I have 10-15lb left to lose so I am reasonably confident I will be in maintenance by then. So the lipids being lost through weight loss might be less.
I thought long and hard about this and I decided that at the moment the benefits of this WOE are greater than the risks. I am getting slimmer, I have the energy to walk 15,000+ steps a day, my skin has improved to the point I don't need the antibiotics I was prescribed for acne, I sleep better and I drink a quarter of the alcohol I used to before I started eating like this. All these are clear health benefits.
Another psychological benefit is that I am no longer obsessed with food. I used to think about it all the time - and I still do, but now in a detached analytical way. I don't feel guilty, bloated, sneaky, tormented and depressed at my appearance. I just feel in control. I haven't binged for two months and it doesn't occur to me any more.
My mental health is SO MUCH BETTER and it's improving even more now I get used to the WOE and have learned how to navigate social situations too (I was a bit of a hermit at the beginning).
So. One raised health marker, dozens of others diminished.
My plan of action is to stick with the current plan and go back for the blood test in 3 months. If things have got worse I will then implement a new plan where I get less of my fat from red meat and more from heart healthy sources.
Sound good?0 -
Sounds very sensible to me! And your risk/benefit analysis is clear.0
-
It sounds good.... But research is showing that saturated fat eg fat on meat and butter etc is not the unhealthy source of fat we have been taught. So it's not the red meat that's a problem, in my opinion.0
-
It's like blaming firefighters for the fire, just because they always show up... cholesterol is something the body makes because we need it. If there is too much, it is a sign something else is wrong (inflammation), as the cholesterol is there to repair things. Eating lchf helps adjust and keep the cholesterol at the right levels, eventually, so not to worry! My triglycerides went from 124 in 2010 to 59 in 2014--I started lchf WOE in late 2012. My total chol in 2010 was 183, and went up to 221 in 2014. I feel a heck of a lot better!0
-
You'll also probably be interested in this video about the history of the whole "fat is bad" thing.
Fun fact -- low cholesterol does not actually protect against heart attacks as is commonly believed, as many people with total cholesterol below the line are admitted for CVD as above it. There's actually some pretty compelling evidence that a total cholesterol around the border of what conventional medicine says is the upper limit for "normal" is actually where the most health protection is.
Total cholesterol alone doesn't really tell you anything, though. So if that's the only number he looked at, get a different doctor. What matters more is LDL particle size (the small dense ones are the dangerous ones, while the light fluffy ones behave more like HDL), HDL to total cholesterol ratio, and triglyceride levels. If he didn't at the very least get the standard total, HDL, LDL, and triglyceride numbers and go over all of them with you, then that total number is absolutely worthless. If he did get those and complains that LDL is too high, if your triglycerides are under 100 (in whatever units are used in the US, I don't know if it's the same where you live, but whatever is well into the range of "optimal"), then insist on getting a direct measurement of LDL (it's nearly always calculated) and get one of the particle size measurement tests. LDL appears to go up on this way of eating, but that's because the particles get bigger, not because there are more of them. When triglycerides are under 100, that generally indicates large fluffy LDL particles.0 -
SlimBride2Be wrote: »Thank you people. To be honest he sounded rushed and inexperienced (I don't know this doctor but "Google a low fat diet"?!) so I'm going to take his advice with a pinch of salt.
I slept on the news and this is my plan of action. He wants me to repeat the test in 3 months. I have 10-15lb left to lose so I am reasonably confident I will be in maintenance by then. So the lipids being lost through weight loss might be less.
I thought long and hard about this and I decided that at the moment the benefits of this WOE are greater than the risks. I am getting slimmer, I have the energy to walk 15,000+ steps a day, my skin has improved to the point I don't need the antibiotics I was prescribed for acne, I sleep better and I drink a quarter of the alcohol I used to before I started eating like this. All these are clear health benefits.
Another psychological benefit is that I am no longer obsessed with food. I used to think about it all the time - and I still do, but now in a detached analytical way. I don't feel guilty, bloated, sneaky, tormented and depressed at my appearance. I just feel in control. I haven't binged for two months and it doesn't occur to me any more.
My mental health is SO MUCH BETTER and it's improving even more now I get used to the WOE and have learned how to navigate social situations too (I was a bit of a hermit at the beginning).
So. One raised health marker, dozens of others diminished.
My plan of action is to stick with the current plan and go back for the blood test in 3 months. If things have got worse I will then implement a new plan where I get less of my fat from red meat and more from heart healthy sources.
Sound good?
Also, don't expect perfect results at this interval. You'll really want to be in maintenance about 3 months prior to testing to let your numbers level out. I wouldn't rush on getting this testing. If you're still feeling awesome in 3 months, I'd ask to push it out to 6 months for the testing. Just me personally. That is what I'm doing for myself.0 -
0
-
Hahahahah!0
-
@Dragonwolf, lol! You are on a roll this morning! Love it!0
