Are these numbers good?

[ninehigh99]

Just took my first lipid profile test. These are good numbers, right?

Code: Select all

LDL Direct Cholesterol             93 mg/dl   <=130   
HDL Cholesterol                    62         >=40   
Triglyceride                       56 mg/dl   35-149   
Non-HDL Cholesterol Calculation    104        <=190   
Chol/HDL Ratio                     2.7        <=5.0

Glucose Fasting                    98 mg/dl   70-100



[landog]

You pass the lipid test with flying colors!

[colonyofcells]

Fasting blood sugar of 98 is borderline. I've had around 98 fasting blood sugar for around a decade or more before I got prediabetes.

[ninehigh99]

Fasting blood sugar of 98 is borderline. I've had around 98 fasting blood sugar for around a decade or more before I got prediabetes.

Thanks colony, I'll keep my eye on it. Do you think diet drinks have anything to do with it?

[eXtremE]

Agree with both landog and Colony. Lipids look great but FBG does not look that great. Was it truly fasting BG or did you eat anything 8 hours prior to having these tests?

Keep up the good work!

[ninehigh99]

Agree with both landog and Colony. Lipids look great but FBG does not look that great. Was it truly fasting BG or did you eat anything 8 hours prior to having these tests?

I didn't eat for 10 hours before the test. I asked the nurse about by FBG, but she said it's fine. I asked her what she'd do if it was 101 md/dl, and she said they'd repeat the test, then they'd try an A1-c test.

I'll keep an eye on my FBG. I'm not worried yet,

[jay kaye]

Just took my first lipid profile test. These are good numbers, right?

Code: Select all

LDL Direct Cholesterol             93 mg/dl   <=130   
HDL Cholesterol                    62         >=40   
Triglyceride                       56 mg/dl   35-149   
Non-HDL Cholesterol Calculation    104        <=190   
Chol/HDL Ratio                     2.7        <=5.0

Glucose Fasting                    98 mg/dl   70-100



You don't post the total cholesterol number, but I guess is is about 160?

Your LDL at 93 is not optimal for cardio protection, if that is a goal.

But for your first lipid panel you are certainly going in the right direction. Congratulations.
j

[waingapu]

Code: Select all

HDL Cholesterol                    62         >=40   
Triglyceride                       56 mg/dl   35-149   
Non-HDL Cholesterol Calculation    104        <=190   
Chol/HDL Ratio                     2.7        <=5.0



You don't post the total cholesterol number, but I guess is is about 160

Actually the Total Choleslterol would be 2.7 x 62, or 167

Not everyone can get their number under 150, even if they follow all the prescribed eating rules.
We're all different.
The original poster indicates this was the first lipid panel.... First ever? Or since following this WOE ?

[jay kaye]

...........Not everyone can get their number under 150, even if they follow all the prescribed eating rules.
We're all different.

I think that research of modern day populations such as the Hadza, Akorore, Tarahumara, etc. who eat a rudimentary plant based diet proves that humans natural cholesterol levels are between 100-140. Unless one suffers from some sort of genetic abnormality, if the diet is strict enough ,the total cholesterol levels should get below 150.

See Chart Eaton Konner Shostak

As important is the LDL levels. According to Dr. Roberts to be cardio-protective they need to be under 70 and under 60 if there is proven disease. Cites can be found in my older posting. Or PM and I'll send them to you.

j

[waingapu]

...........Not everyone can get their number under 150, even if they follow all the prescribed eating rules.
We're all different.

I think that research of modern day populations such as the Hadza, Akorore, Tarahumara, etc. who eat a rudimentary plant based diet proves that humans natural cholesterol levels are between 100-140. Unless one suffers from some sort of genetic abnormality, if the diet is strict enough ,the total cholesterol levels should get below 150.

As important is the LDL levels. According to Dr. Roberts to be cardio-protective they need to be under 70 and under 60 if there is proven disease. Cites can be found in my older posting. Or PM and I'll send them to you.

You have chosen to use some very genetically isolated communities as your normal human examples.
You seem to draw conclusions for everyone else based on these unusual examples.

How about trying to look at more typical people on very strict diets.
Look at Dean Ornish's original heart reversal diet.
The mean Total Cholesterol for his subjects was 162.9 at the end of one year
The mean fat as percent of calories for that group was 6.22%
6.22% sounds like their diet was strict enough by any standard, yet their Total Cholesterol was well above 150 on average.

Their LDL was 86.5 at the end of 1 year.

Like I said "Not everyone can get their number under 150, even if they follow all the prescribed eating rules.
We're all different"

http://www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-conten ... sease1.pdf

[eXtremE]

...........Not everyone can get their number under 150, even if they follow all the prescribed eating rules.
We're all different.

I think that research of modern day populations such as the Hadza, Akorore, Tarahumara, etc. who eat a rudimentary plant based diet proves that humans natural cholesterol levels are between 100-140. Unless one suffers from some sort of genetic abnormality, if the diet is strict enough ,the total cholesterol levels should get below 150.

See Chart Eaton Konner Shostak

As important is the LDL levels. According to Dr. Roberts to be cardio-protective they need to be under 70 and under 60 if there is proven disease. Cites can be found in my older posting. Or PM and I'll send them to you.

j

My diet was not even 100% strict and my TC was 126.

[waingapu]

My diet was not even 100% strict and my TC was 126.

Exactly, some can not be strict and easily get well under 150, while others can do a diet with less than 7% of calories as fat, and struggle to even get to 163.

[baardmk]

Congrats to OP for pretty good results! I have a TC of 134 but my TC/HDL is not as good as yours.

You'll probably get 95% of the benefits if you follow this WOE 95% to the letter. If you're in the know about your risks, and are satisfied with your situation, that's OK, but that's not an argument against wanting more improvement when there's room for it.

Most people believe they're doing things much better then they really are. Looking back at how I used to eat, I believed I was following the government guidelines closely, but really there was great room for improvement.

And sometimes it seems details can matter quite a bit. We see examples of this in these forums from time to time. Some people are adding small amounts of salt, but are getting substantial BP reduction when they eliminate it, same with lipid profiles, even if they only are having some sub-optimal additions to the diet.

It's not shooting for the moon to get TC below 150 for most people. If you can't achieve that but you pass the plate test with flying colours, and other numbers are good, you should be fairly confident that you're doing OK.

[eXtremE]

There is a genetic component in a lot of these things too. I recall once in 2006 when I got really sick and had to go into a mental hospital for klonopin withdrawal. IIRC, during my 22 day at this facility, my weight dropped from about 170 to to like 135. They literally had to force me to eat anything and the little food I was eating was SAD. Benzo withdrawal is much worse than heroin. After I was released, they managed to put me back on valium and lexapro and I had to immediately go and see my PCP. He did some blood work then and IIRC again, my blood lipids had plummeted just from the pure weight loss alone...no PB diet at all. In 2006, I had no clue even what a WFPB diet was. After the valium and lexapro started to work and I started eating more and regaining the weight back, cholesterol levels started creeping back up again. I actually think the refined carb products (combining sugar and fat) like cookies, cakes, and doughnuts were having a more profound impact on my lipids than the amount of meat I was eating.

Now I am back in the same boat as the valium and lexapro don't work anymore but no where nearly as bad as I was in 2006. That is why I am now at 140-144 lbs and struggling not to lose anymore weight eating PB. I still have very little appetite (still eat only 2 meals per day) for food and virtually no thirst for water at all. I have been forcing myself to drink 3-4 cups of water daily.

[ninehigh99]

Congrats to OP for pretty good results! I have a TC of 134 but my TC/HDL is not as good as yours.

You'll probably get 95% of the benefits if you follow this WOE 95% to the letter. If you're in the know about your risks, and are satisfied with your situation, that's OK, but that's not an argument against wanting more improvement when there's room for it.

Most people believe they're doing things much better then they really are. Looking back at how I used to eat, I believed I was following the government guidelines closely, but really there was great room for improvement.

My diet isn't even close to 7% fat. I'd be lucky if I ate less than 25% fat. I eat about 250g of animal products a week, and that might include 4 eggs. I had a slice of pizza yesterday.

But for the most part, I eat WFPB. I use some butter and canola oil (maybe 120g/week of added fats). My weight continues to drop, and I learn more about vegetables and cooking each week.

This was my first lipid panel. I'm sure my numbers came down from 9 months ago, when I ate 3000+ calories of fast food every day. I'm happy with the results.

I'd call myself 70% compliant with the McDougall plan. However, I'm 100% indebted to Dr McDougall for the simple message that our traditional diets are starch-based, with lots of vegetables and little meat. That's a revolutionary message in today's world. For real.