1 year and a lot of changes!

[vincent]

Hello,

I would like to share my story on lowering cholesterol levels - well the bad one at least.

I wrote all about it in details there: beatcholesterol.blogspot.com
(http://beatcholesterol.blogspot.com)
But to summarise, a year ago I have been doing a blood test that reveal a high level of cholesterol...or at least a bad ratio CHL / HDL.

Following the doctor's advise I have cut down on saturated fats. It kind of got some results but not sufficient enough for me. That's where I read Mr Eades book. 4 months ago I switched to Low-Carb diet and doing more exercises, the results are so far good: lower LDL, higher HDL and triglycerides falling down!

My total CHL is still high - abit above the range- Not too sure how I will get it lower !

[SherryJ]

Way to go, Vincent! If you continue eating the PP way, you should continue to lower your numbers.

And... welcome! :)

Sherry

[mcsblues]

Welcome aboard Vincent.

Can I just say one thing to you? Your cholesterol is what used to be called normal ... before drug companies and 'scientists' on drug company payrolls started telling us what 'normal' should be.

As the Eades say if anything about cholesterol is relevant to your health, it is the ratios (which are all improving on your low carb diet) and more important indicators such as triglycerides (also heading south) and other more reliable markers such as CRP, fibrinogen and homocysteine.

Just my opinion of course, but one shared by many others ... forget about getting regular cholesterol tests! If you are interested in some more reading I can highly recommend the following;

Uffe Ravnskov's "The Cholesterol Myths" (http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm)

Anthony Colpo's "The Great Cholesterol Con (http://www.theomnivore.com/)"

(and see this article (http://www.theomnivore.com/Uffe_Ravnskov_Sydney_Visit.html) about their recent meeting)

also http://www.thincs.org/

[Mitra]

Comments that Dr Michael Eades has made in his blog suggest that he doesn't agree with much of the prevalent preoccupation with cholesterol. In a comment a couple of weeks ago he said: As you know from reading this blog, I'm not a real believer in the lipid hypothesis of heart disease. Having said that, if there is any part of the whole hypothesis that I think is even part way valid it would be that HDL cholesterol is protective. And probably that small, dense LDL is more easily oxidized and may contribute to cardiovascular disease.

You can go to the trouble and expense (it cost about $200 the last time I checked) to get your LDL analyzed as to particle size. There have been enough studies done now showing that triglycerides are a surrogate marker for LDL particle size--high triglycerides indicate small dense LDL; low triglycerides mean large fluffy, type A, LDL--that I don't bother with the expensive test any longer. I simply look at triglycerides. ... (You could request an ApoB test, which will show how many LDL particles you have; if there aren't very many and you have a lot of LDL, then you'll know that the particle size is large. ApoB is a less costly lab test than the direct measurement of particle size.) Even the folks who are firm believers in the LDL-cholesterol-is-bad theory, don't particularly fear the large type A LDL particles.


(The bit I removed "..." was addressed directly to the individual who'd asked a question.)

And in a later comment on the same post:

I had dinner last night with a guy who, until recently, ran one of the huge scanners that does total body scans and ultrafast CT scans of the heart. He told me of a conversation about cholesterol he once had with a big time cardiologist from USC. The cardiologist asked my friend if he knew how to tell if high cholesterol levels would lead to heart disease in a patient. My friend said 'no.' The cardiologist said: 'flip a coin.' In other words, there is no correlation.

So, it's not just MD and me and Ravnskov who don't think cholesterol is the problem; there are a lot of other physicians out there, too. They just don't have the drug-underwritten soapbox.