Cholesterol Happy Dance

[Kathi]

Well, I got some great news on my fasting cholesterol test from yesterday.

Dec 2002: Total chol - 210
Sep 2003: Total chol - 139 (s/b less than 200)

Dec 2002: HDL - 40
Sep 2003: HDL - 42 (acceptable is 40 to 60)

Dec 2002: LDL-couldn't be calculated well cause tryglycerides were 446
Sep 2003: LDL - 76 (optimal is below 100)

Guess I need to work on the 'good' cholesterol numbers, but I am really
happy anyway :) I was worried that I was going to have to give up the
eggs that I have for breakfast every day.

Kathi in Huntsville
247/207/150 Oct. goal - 202
5'8"
started LC 5/1/03

[Seattleburb]

Good job, Kathi!

What are your triglycerides at now? I just had mine done, also, and
don't quite know what to make of it. Of course my "friends" all look
really concerned, nod their pretty heads knowingly, and repeat their
concerns about LC.

My Total Cholesterol in 2001 was 182
Now it's 248 (YIKES!)

HDL was 63
now 95

LDL was 105
now 142

Triglycerides were 68
now 54

Anybody care to comment? I'm a *little* freaked out, but won't let my
friends say "I TOLD you so".

Kathy B :)
185/148/135

[Nomenclature]

Same thing has happened to me but after only a mere 6 weeks on atkins
Trigycerides WAY down. HDL significantly UP
But Total and LDL also up

BUT you're ratios LDL/HDL, and Tot/HDL are quite good and were not all that
bad even before. And your Trig are not worth worrying about. Wish mine were
as low as yours USED to be

"Seattleburb" > wrote in message
om...
> Good job, Kathi!
>
> What are your triglycerides at now? I just had mine done, also, and
> don't quite know what to make of it. Of course my "friends" all look
> really concerned, nod their pretty heads knowingly, and repeat their
> concerns about LC.
>
> My Total Cholesterol in 2001 was 182
> Now it's 248 (YIKES!)
>
> HDL was 63
> now 95
>
> LDL was 105
> now 142
>
> Triglycerides were 68
> now 54
>
> Anybody care to comment? I'm a *little* freaked out, but won't let my
> friends say "I TOLD you so".
>
> Kathy B :)
> 185/148/135

[Jean B.]

Kathi wrote:
>
> Well, I got some great news on my fasting cholesterol test from yesterday.
>
> Dec 2002: Total chol - 210
> Sep 2003: Total chol - 139 (s/b less than 200)
>
> Dec 2002: HDL - 40
> Sep 2003: HDL - 42 (acceptable is 40 to 60)
>
> Dec 2002: LDL-couldn't be calculated well cause tryglycerides were 446
> Sep 2003: LDL - 76 (optimal is below 100)
>
> Guess I need to work on the 'good' cholesterol numbers, but I am really
> happy anyway :) I was worried that I was going to have to give up the
> eggs that I have for breakfast every day.
>
> Kathi in Huntsville
> 247/207/150 Oct. goal - 202
> 5'8"
> started LC 5/1/03

Oh wow! Look at those numbers! That's great, Kathi! I do hope
mine will be better than they were. The tests will probably be
done about 4.5 months after I started LCing.
--
Jean B., 12 miles west of Boston, Massachusetts, USA

[Kathi]

Seattleburb > wrote:
> Good job, Kathi!

> What are your triglycerides at now?

My triglycerides -

Dec. 2002 - 446
Sep. 2003 - 106 (normal is less than 150)

I just had mine done, also, and
> don't quite know what to make of it. Of course my "friends" all look
> really concerned, nod their pretty heads knowingly, and repeat their
> concerns about LC.

Ah yes! Mine got very quiet yesterday when they heard my results <grin>!

> My Total Cholesterol in 2001 was 182
> Now it's 248 (YIKES!)

> HDL was 63
> now 95

> LDL was 105
> now 142

> Triglycerides were 68
> now 54

> Anybody care to comment? I'm a *little* freaked out, but won't let my
> friends say "I TOLD you so".

> Kathy B :)
> 185/148/135

Well, someone else pointed out that your ratios are good, I think. That
part is something that I don't know about. I'm going to do some research
on the web today.

The ranges that I quoted yesterday as far as normals/optimals apply to
people with no more than one risk factor for heart disease. According to
the reading I've done, I have two risk factors - my weight (still 45 lbs
over normal weight) and the fact that my father developed heart disease
before age 55. Therefore, my recommended LDL level should be less than
130. Mine is 76, so that is good. The info I read went on to say that
several other conditions are as dangerous as having coronary artery
disease - one was diabetes (which I don't have) (this was discussing addnl
heart disease risks). In those cases, LDL s/b less than 100... so I even
beat that level.

Of course, I am still confused about 'how' to lower cholesterol - but diet
and exercise are supposed to be key. In my case that certainly seems to
be reflected.

Certainly you need to talk to your doc and get his/her take on your
results. When I go in for my physical at the first of the year, I am
going to ask about the CRP test that is getting so much press these days.
It is supposed to be a better indicator of heart disease risk than the
cholesterol test.

Btw, when did you start LC?? I understand that can make your numbers
worse at first, before they get better.

HTH,
Kathi in Huntsville
247/207/150 Oct. goal - 202
5'8"
started LC 5/1/03

[Kathi]

Jim Chinnis > wrote:
> Kathi > wrote in part:

>>Well, I got some great news on my fasting cholesterol test from yesterday.
>>
>>Dec 2002: Total chol - 210
>>Sep 2003: Total chol - 139 (s/b less than 200)
>>
>>Dec 2002: HDL - 40
>>Sep 2003: HDL - 42 (acceptable is 40 to 60)
>>
>>Dec 2002: LDL-couldn't be calculated well cause tryglycerides were 446
>>Sep 2003: LDL - 76 (optimal is below 100)
>>
>>Guess I need to work on the 'good' cholesterol numbers, but I am really
>>happy anyway :) I was worried that I was going to have to give up the
>>eggs that I have for breakfast every day.

> Just have 'em with a glass of Champagne or a bloody Mary and the HDL will be
> fine. ;-)
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Thanks for the tip :) I just found some info about that on WebMD. I
guess that I'll have to budget that in my calories.

Kathi in Huntsville

[Kathi]

Jean B. > wrote:
<<snippage>

> Oh wow! Look at those numbers! That's great, Kathi! I do hope
> mine will be better than they were. The tests will probably be
> done about 4.5 months after I started LCing.
> --
> Jean B., 12 miles west of Boston, Massachusetts, USA

Jean,

That sounds like a good plan. I had mine done almost exactly 5 months
after I started LCing.

Kathi in Huntsville

[Jean B.]

Kathi wrote:

> Jean,
>
> That sounds like a good plan. I had mine done almost exactly 5 months
> after I started LCing.
>
> Kathi in Huntsville

I'll be very curious to see how the numbers come out.... You must
be just thrilled with yours.

--
Jean B., 12 miles west of Boston, Massachusetts, USA

[Bob M]

On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 15:21:06 -0000, Kathi > wrote:

> Seattleburb > wrote:
>> Good job, Kathi!
>
>> What are your triglycerides at now?
>
> My triglycerides -
>
> Dec. 2002 - 446
> Sep. 2003 - 106 (normal is less than 150)
>
> I just had mine done, also, and
>> don't quite know what to make of it. Of course my "friends" all look
>> really concerned, nod their pretty heads knowingly, and repeat their
>> concerns about LC.
>
> Ah yes! Mine got very quiet yesterday when they heard my results <grin>!
>
>> My Total Cholesterol in 2001 was 182
>> Now it's 248 (YIKES!)
>
>> HDL was 63
>> now 95
>
>> LDL was 105
>> now 142
>
>> Triglycerides were 68
>> now 54
>
>> Anybody care to comment? I'm a *little* freaked out, but won't let my
>> friends say "I TOLD you so".
>
>> Kathy B :)
>> 185/148/135
>
> Well, someone else pointed out that your ratios are good, I think. That
> part is something that I don't know about. I'm going to do some research
> on the web today.
>
> The ranges that I quoted yesterday as far as normals/optimals apply to
> people with no more than one risk factor for heart disease. According to
> the reading I've done, I have two risk factors - my weight (still 45 lbs
> over normal weight) and the fact that my father developed heart disease
> before age 55. Therefore, my recommended LDL level should be less than
> 130. Mine is 76, so that is good. The info I read went on to say that
> several other conditions are as dangerous as having coronary artery
> disease - one was diabetes (which I don't have) (this was discussing
> addnl heart disease risks). In those cases, LDL s/b less than 100... so I
> even
> beat that level.
>
> Of course, I am still confused about 'how' to lower cholesterol - but
> diet and exercise are supposed to be key. In my case that certainly
> seems to be reflected.
>
> Certainly you need to talk to your doc and get his/her take on your
> results. When I go in for my physical at the first of the year, I am
> going to ask about the CRP test that is getting so much press these days.
>
> It is supposed to be a better indicator of heart disease risk than the
> cholesterol test.
>
> Btw, when did you start LC?? I understand that can make your numbers
> worse at first, before they get better.
>
> HTH,
> Kathi in Huntsville
> 247/207/150 Oct. goal - 202
> 5'8"
> started LC 5/1/03
>

You might also want to research total cholesterol below 150 and its
relationship to premature death from all causes. However, I wouldn't put
too much stock in any of this, particularly for a female (some people say
that women can have any cholesterol they want and it doesn't make much
difference mortality-wise).

--
Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply

[Kathi]

Jean B. > wrote:
> Kathi wrote:
>
>> Jean,
>>
>> That sounds like a good plan. I had mine done almost exactly 5 months
>> after I started LCing.
>>
>> Kathi in Huntsville

> I'll be very curious to see how the numbers come out.... You must
> be just thrilled with yours.

> --
> Jean B., 12 miles west of Boston, Massachusetts, USA

I have to admit having somewhat of a feeling of disbelief at first. It's
similar to the feeling I get from time to time when I see the scale at
yet a lower number. It's great!

Kathi in Huntsville
247/207/150 Oct. goal - 202
5'8"
started LC 5/1/03

[Kathi]

Bob M > wrote:

> You might also want to research total cholesterol below 150 and its
> relationship to premature death from all causes. However, I wouldn't put
> too much stock in any of this, particularly for a female (some people say
> that women can have any cholesterol they want and it doesn't make much
> difference mortality-wise).

> Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply

Bob,

I get the gist of what you are saying about the chances of death from all
causes. I ran into the 'number' game when my mom was diagnosed with
breast cancer and we were trying to determine what course of action to
follow - i.e., mastectomy (sp?), chemo, etc. The numbers quoted are often
out of context because of what you brought up - that we have X chance of
dying of something at any particular moment in time. (Did I just make any
sense at all? :P)

I guess that I've felt a little more 'mortal' than usual in the last year,
since my father died of heart disease at age 65 in October and my mom had
breast cancer surgery & chemo (which ended just before Thanksgiving -
she's doing great now!)

Kathi in Huntsville

[Bob M]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 03:24:45 -0000, Kathi > wrote:

> Bob M > wrote:
>
>> You might also want to research total cholesterol below 150 and its
>> relationship to premature death from all causes. However, I wouldn't
>> put too much stock in any of this, particularly for a female (some
>> people say that women can have any cholesterol they want and it doesn't
>> make much difference mortality-wise).
>
>> Bob M in CT remove 'x.' to reply
>
> Bob,
>
> I get the gist of what you are saying about the chances of death from all
> causes. I ran into the 'number' game when my mom was diagnosed with
> breast cancer and we were trying to determine what course of action to
> follow - i.e., mastectomy (sp?), chemo, etc. The numbers quoted are
> often out of context because of what you brought up - that we have X
> chance of dying of something at any particular moment in time. (Did I
> just make any sense at all? :P)
>
> I guess that I've felt a little more 'mortal' than usual in the last
> year, since my father died of heart disease at age 65 in October and my
> mom had breast cancer surgery & chemo (which ended just before
> Thanksgiving - she's doing great now!)
>
> Kathi in Huntsville
>

Yeah, all of this stuff is a numbers game, where it's unclear that (1) the
data are correct to begin with, (2) "proper" analysis of the data is being
used, (3) there are no "preconceptions" that influence (2), and (4) the
conclusions actually fit the analysis and data. The only reason I brought
this up is that several studies have indicated that total cholesterol below
150/160 is "dangerous." This is my problem -- my HDL is around 40 but my
total cholesterol is about 150. My goal is to raise my HDL, although my
HDL has always been low. So, I'm trying to actually raise my total
cholesterol by raising my HDL.

As an example, I saw a study where the conclusion was that men who had more
sex lived longer. But is that the correct analysis, or is it that men who
have good relationships with women (thereby having more sex) live longer?

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

[Bob M]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:11:35 GMT, Jim Chinnis >
wrote:

> Bob M > wrote in part:
>
>> The only reason I brought this up is that several studies have indicated
>> that total cholesterol below 150/160 is "dangerous."
>
> Any references to those studies?
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
>

Not to the ones I was thinking of, but here's a few:

http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0803014.htm
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=1208
http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/14/low_cholesterol_aggression.htm

(I googled "low colesterol death all causes".)

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

[Bob M]

On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 16:29:30 GMT, Jim Chinnis >
wrote:

> Bob M > wrote in part:
>
>> Jim Chinnis > wrote:
>>
>>> Bob M > wrote in part:
>>>
>>>> The only reason I brought this up is that several studies have
>>>> indicated that total cholesterol below 150/160 is "dangerous."
>>>
>>> Any references to those studies?
>
>> Not to the ones I was thinking of, but here's a few:
>>
>> http://unisci.com/stories/20013/0803014.htm
>> http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=1208
>> http://www.mercola.com/2001/jan/14/low_cholesterol_aggression.htm
>
> Thanks. I think I tracked down the primary sources from your URLs.
>
> This is a complex topic, and probably not one well-suited to an
> alt.support
> newsgroup. But there are some statistical issues that make interpretation
> of
> the observed increase in all-cause mortality difficult.
>
> The AHA URL article stated, "Careful analysis has revealed that a
> substantial
> portion of this excess mortality at low levels of cholesterol appears to
> be
> caused by poor health at baseline in many persons with lower cholesterol.
> However, after exclusion of ill persons and early deaths, a residual
> association between very low cholesterol and mortality persists in some
> studies."
>
> The residual association does not look very convincing however. It lacks
> a
> dose-response relationship, and the causes of mortality that increase
> with low
> cholesterol differ from study to study.
>
> I guess the main problem is just that epidemiological data are used,
> pretty
> much out of necessity. Controlled trials that have used drugs to lower
> cholesterol have not gone on long enough to draw conclusions about all-
> cause
> mortality in the tail of the distribution. And the epidemiological
> studies
> have some severe problems there as well. The Lancet study showing that
> the
> elderly tend to die sooner when cholesterol is below about 170mg/dL
> (4.4mmol/L) is an example. While those with very low cholesterol may have
> metabolic problems, poor diets, or illness to start with, the
> participants who
> have higher cholesterol and who have nevertheless made it into old age
> have
> genes that have protected them from cardiovascular disease--they are
> genetically different individuals from those at the very low cholesterol
> levels.
>
> My total cholesterol is 150 mg/dL (3.88 mmol/L) and I'm not worried after
> looking at the reports.
>
> Jim
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
>

Well, I'm not worried, either, although I am worried about my HDL (too low)
and my c-reactive protein. My low cholesterol is based strictly on
genetics, as I've had the same total cholesterol regardless of diet (low
fat or low carb). However, some people use statins and get their total
cholesterol very low (one person said that he had a total cholesterol of
220 and dropped it to 150 or so with low carb and statins). It just seems
weird that we are fixated on high cholesterol (with its dubious
relationship to heart disease) enough to drive total cholesterol down to
very low values.

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

[Seattleburb]

Hey Kathi,

I took your advice and called my doc. He said not to worry about my
cholesterol at this point. Ratios are quite good -- not to get
"wrapped around the axle" about total cholesterol. He is quite
supportive of LC, which pleased me, and said that while people are
losing weight it's not uncommon for chol. levels to rise temporarily.
His only concern with LC is that it seems to be difficult for people
to maintain that WOE for the long haul. I'm hoping that won't be the
case -- with all the support we all have! I started LC the same time
you did, 1st week of May.

Good luck, you much be feeling great!

Kathy