High fat diet = low cholesterol and triglycerides??

2»

Replies

  • brightsideofpink
    brightsideofpink Posts: 1,018 Member
    I get a full health screening every year so I've been able to compare numbers. All numbers had been pretty consistent (and bad) for several years. But the last two have shown some interesting trends (June 2014, only one month after starting at MFP and September 2015). Having lost 70 lbs in that timeframe, I wasn't surprised to see just about every number improve with most now in the normal range. The exception was my LDL, or 'bad' cholesterol which actually increased by 30%. When I talked to the dietician about it, she asked to see my food diary. I eat a lot of cheese, so I guess there's the culprit. Still, she's not concerned. She said the ratios of HDL:LDL and HDL:total cholesterol are the most important. Did you get the breakdown of your cholesterol?
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    I'd heard that the greatest impact on HDL was the type of fats. Exercise definitely helps, but you can't out train a bad diet. But I'm sure genetic predisposition plays a huge role, especially in regard to how your body processes/tolerates carbs.

    OP -- I think what you're experiencing is really common for people that take a lower carb, higher fat approach (not just the keto people) especially if they're focusing on good fats (monounsaturated, medium changes and more omega-3s rather than omega-6s). I know when I was cutting I fell into this group (but not low enough to be keto -- but lower carb) and my HDL was awesome and my triglycerides were really low. My total was a little high -- but it was because my HDL was so awesome. Had my HDL been in "normal" ranges, my total cholesterol would have have been normal rather than slightly elevated.

    When I got down to my target weight/body comp, I could tolerate a lot more carbs in general and my cholesterol still stays pretty good. Not quite as awesome as it was, but still in the ideal range.

    My doc said that views on cholesterol are changing. That total is not nearly as important as the bigger picture -- the biggest factors being (1) ratio of HDL to total, (2) low level of triglycerides and (3) non-HDL cholesterol below a certain point (130 or lower is ideal).

    I'm sure there are other ways to get great cholesterol and other factors that play into it -- genetics seem to be a big issue in particular and, of course, healthy weight and exercise. But, what you're seeing on a high fat lower carb diet is very common for many of us and I think has been discussed quite extensively in such ways of eating.

    Here's a little blurb from the Mayo clinic that discusses it: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/expert-answers/cholesterol-ratio/faq-20058006
  • AspenDan
    AspenDan Posts: 703 Member
    Still, she's not concerned. She said the ratios of HDL:LDL and HDL:total cholesterol are the most important. Did you get the breakdown of your cholesterol?

    200 total.
    137 ldl
    48 hdl

    She said I need to increase my hdl by eating more healthy fats like avocado and nuts =(
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member

    Doctor said he wasn't too concerned because weight loss can mess with your numbers

    That's a good point. The biological function of lipoproteins like LDL is to shuttle fatty materials through the blood. When you are losing weight, your body has to move a lot of fats through the blood to be metabolized. That can cause temporary worsening of cholesterol in some people. You really need to see what it's like in maintenance.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    edited November 2015
    AspenDan wrote: »
    Still, she's not concerned. She said the ratios of HDL:LDL and HDL:total cholesterol are the most important. Did you get the breakdown of your cholesterol?

    200 total.
    137 ldl
    48 hdl

    She said I need to increase my hdl by eating more healthy fats like avocado and nuts =(

    I'd generally agree with her on that. An omega-3 supplement may also help. Do you know what your triglycerides were?

    When I was going through this, my HDL was 90, my LDL was 110, triglycerides 39, total 208, ratio 2.3. And I was 20 - 25 lbs heavier than my ideal weight.

    When I got down to my ideal weight and started eating more carbs, my HDL and triglycerides stayed pretty much the same, but my LDL rose slightly. So my overall and ratio were a little worse, but still in the ideal.

  • AspenDan
    AspenDan Posts: 703 Member
    AspenDan wrote: »
    Still, she's not concerned. She said the ratios of HDL:LDL and HDL:total cholesterol are the most important. Did you get the breakdown of your cholesterol?

    200 total.
    137 ldl
    48 hdl

    She said I need to increase my hdl by eating more healthy fats like avocado and nuts =(

    I'd generally agree with her on that. An omega-3 supplement may also help. Do you know what your triglycerides were?

    When I was going through this, my HDL was 90, my LDL was 110, triglycerides 39, total 208, ratio 2.3. And I was 20 - 25 lbs heavier than my ideal weight.

    When I got down to my ideal weight and started eating more carbs, my HDL and triglycerides stayed pretty much the same, but my LDL rose slightly. So my overall and ratio were a little worse, but still in the ideal.

    Triglycerides were at 102, looks like I still have work to do.
    I've been considering taking omega 3s in addition to my men's daily multivitamin.
    Maybe after my next 70lbs, I'll be spot on, we'll see!
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Losing weight is usually the best thing you can do to improve those numbers. So not surprising.

    How much diet matters varies person to person. My dad improved his numbers by reducing sat fat. I don't eat enormous amounts of sat fat, but mine (total numbers and ratio) have always been good, whatever my diet.
  • lgoldfarb
    lgoldfarb Posts: 76 Member
    Genetics play a huge role for some people and sometimes don't have anything to do with weight. 10 years ago (and 34 lbs ago) I weighed 104 lbs and my triglycerides were almost 800. Now I'm on 3 medications and within normal range even though I've been gaining weight. Hoping that as I lose weight and keep my numbers under control that I'll be able to get off some of the meds.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    She said the ratios of HDL:LDL and HDL:total cholesterol are the most important. Did you get the breakdown of your cholesterol?

    I've always read that it's the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL (tc/hdl) that was important, though some doctors seem to be going away from that to non-hdl levels.

    http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/expert-answers/cholesterol-ratio/faq-20058006


    How important is cholesterol ratio?

    For predicting your risk of heart disease, many doctors now believe that determining your non-HDL cholesterol level may be more useful than calculating your cholesterol ratio. And either option appears to be a better risk predictor than your total cholesterol level or even your low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or "bad") cholesterol level.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited November 2015
    yarwell wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    I found eating lower carb while also losing weight caused my numbers to go in the "bad" direction after a year. So it seems like, as with most things, it depends on the person.

    the types of fat also seem to be relevant, some people with a high intake of sat fat see LDL cholesterol increase markedly but can bring it down by changing to more unsaturated options.

    Whether it matters is another debate altogether.

    The triglycerides jumped and the HDLs went down... Basically every marker went in the wrong way! And I would say the biggest difference was I added back in more red meat and more eggs (and cut down on the overall carbs, my fiber was woefully low, and that might be what would have made the difference for me). Lost weight, started running again. No matter when it came to my poor blood. *Sigh* I probably just tipped the scale too far with saturated fat, though my saturated fats were less than 1/3 of my overall fat.

    I'm not trying to dissuade people from trying low carb at all. I loved it. Just giving that tiny bit of nagging that genetics still plays into it (like many people on this thread mentioned).
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    WBB55 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    I found eating lower carb while also losing weight caused my numbers to go in the "bad" direction after a year. So it seems like, as with most things, it depends on the person.

    the types of fat also seem to be relevant, some people with a high intake of sat fat see LDL cholesterol increase markedly but can bring it down by changing to more unsaturated options.

    Whether it matters is another debate altogether.

    The triglycerides jumped and the HDLs went down... Basically every marker went in the wrong way! And I would say the biggest difference was I added back in more red meat and more eggs (and cut down on the overall carbs, my fiber was woefully low, and that might be what would have made the difference for me). Lost weight, started running again. No matter when it came to my poor blood. *Sigh* I probably just tipped the scale too far with saturated fat, though my saturated fats were less than 1/3 of my overall fat.

    I'm not trying to dissuade people from trying low carb at all. I loved it. Just giving that tiny bit of nagging that genetics still plays into it (like many people on this thread mentioned).

    You might be one of those unlucky people for whom dietary cholesterol has a significant affect on blood cholesterol.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    WBB55 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    I found eating lower carb while also losing weight caused my numbers to go in the "bad" direction after a year. So it seems like, as with most things, it depends on the person.

    the types of fat also seem to be relevant, some people with a high intake of sat fat see LDL cholesterol increase markedly but can bring it down by changing to more unsaturated options.

    Whether it matters is another debate altogether.

    The triglycerides jumped and the HDLs went down... Basically every marker went in the wrong way! And I would say the biggest difference was I added back in more red meat and more eggs (and cut down on the overall carbs, my fiber was woefully low, and that might be what would have made the difference for me). Lost weight, started running again. No matter when it came to my poor blood. *Sigh* I probably just tipped the scale too far with saturated fat, though my saturated fats were less than 1/3 of my overall fat.

    I'm not trying to dissuade people from trying low carb at all. I loved it. Just giving that tiny bit of nagging that genetics still plays into it (like many people on this thread mentioned).

    You might be one of those unlucky people for whom dietary cholesterol has a significant affect on blood cholesterol.

    I would definitely call it unlucky. I encourage people to try low carb if it's something they're interested in. I think it's a great way to control blood sugar and lots of other trends we see.
  • AspenDan
    AspenDan Posts: 703 Member
    WBB55 wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    WBB55 wrote: »
    I found eating lower carb while also losing weight caused my numbers to go in the "bad" direction after a year. So it seems like, as with most things, it depends on the person.

    the types of fat also seem to be relevant, some people with a high intake of sat fat see LDL cholesterol increase markedly but can bring it down by changing to more unsaturated options.

    Whether it matters is another debate altogether.

    The triglycerides jumped and the HDLs went down... Basically every marker went in the wrong way! And I would say the biggest difference was I added back in more red meat and more eggs (and cut down on the overall carbs, my fiber was woefully low, and that might be what would have made the difference for me). Lost weight, started running again. No matter when it came to my poor blood. *Sigh* I probably just tipped the scale too far with saturated fat, though my saturated fats were less than 1/3 of my overall fat.

    I'm not trying to dissuade people from trying low carb at all. I loved it. Just giving that tiny bit of nagging that genetics still plays into it (like many people on this thread mentioned).

    You might be one of those unlucky people for whom dietary cholesterol has a significant affect on blood cholesterol.

    I would definitely call it unlucky. I encourage people to try low carb if it's something they're interested in. I think it's a great way to control blood sugar and lots of other trends we see.

    I do it just because high fat/protein keeps me fuller on an equal amount of calories. Still I love I love carbs so much, sometimes I have to treat myself =)
This discussion has been closed.