LDL going UP UP UP!!! ON The Six Week Cure HELP!

[Susan2009]

I have been on The Six Week Cure For the Middle-Aged Middle for 5 weeks now. I am already a low carb person but I decided to try and lose some extra pounds and so I started this plan. I had my cholesterol checked on week 2 of the Six Week Cure my numbers were: Total: 294 with a LDL of 202, HDL 71 and Trig 70. I read where the formula for deriving LDL would not give an accurate LDL # if the Trig # was under a 100; so on week 5 I returned to the Dr. and requested a direct LDL only. My Dr. was glad to do this and called today with a direct LDL result of 217!!! I am in shock. I have adhered to this plan totally and I can't figure what is going on. To make sure nothing else was going on my Thyroid was also tested and came back totally normal. .05 TSH. Has anyone else had this happen to them. I don't know where to go from here. I have lost 20 lbs and my blood pressure has gone down. I have so many positives but the LDL going up, up up is a very real concern. Help?

[mcsblues]

Welcome Susan.:)

My first suggestion is to see this for what it is. Your LDL is not going up, up, up - a single 'up' maybe - but I imagine the difference is so small it is within the error margin of the test - so it is really much the same. After just 5 weeks you wouldn't expect big changes. So, there is no emergency. The second thing I'd suggest is to read at least one of the Eades other books (PPLP (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446678678/qid=1148257855/sr=1-3?s=books&v=glance&n=283155) would be my pick) - to put the whole issue of cholesterol in perspective. The research tells us that LDL tells us very little about the risk of heart disease. The type of LDL you have might be slightly more instructive - and if you have been low carbing for a while, you are likely to have the 'good' type. Some people do find their LDL goes up initially on low carb before dropping, but more reliable indicators of health are almost invariably better from day one (like your blood pressure).

I know it is hard when the drug company fuelled media keep telling us that cholesterol and saturated fat are deadly, but the fact remains this is dead wrong. Mikes's latest blog (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cardiovascular-disease/statinators-spill-the-beans/) about the most recent research, is about yet another nail in coffin of the 'lower is better theory of heart disease'. So take a deep breath. Relax. And maybe think about checking those numbers in another 6 months or so.

Ok?:nod:

ps. I ran the numbers for your first test - the calculated number for LDL is wrong - should be 209, which brings it even closer to the number in your second test (albeit a direct measurement) ... but if your lab can get simple calculations wrong ...

[Frank Hagan]

I agree with Malcom on this one. 209 is the right number if your total is 294, HDL is 71 and Trig is 70:

LDL = Total - HDL - (Trig * .20)
LDL = 294 - 71 - 14
LDL = 209

The difference between 209 and 217 is less than 5%, and probably within the margin of error. It is interesting that the calculation came so close to your "direct to LDL" measurement, but the difference between the two is not alarming.

You may be back in ketosis, and a rise in LDL is common in ketosis. There has been a lot of recent research into ketogenic diets for control of epilepsy (pioneered originally by Johns Hopkins, but just recently validated through longer term studies). The studies are noticing a rise in LDL in patients during ketosis (Google "LDL rises in ketosis" for more on it). I think Dr. Mike may have mentioned this in one of the PP books as well.

[S Bear]

Your HDL levels and triglyceride levels are at a level that ought to have your doctor celebrating.

And, as both mscblues and Frank mention, there is no evidence that your LDL has actually increased.

I have lost as much as three liters of water in one exercise session. Not all of that comes from my blood plasma, of course (or, rather my blood water content is replenished by drawing blood from other tissues), but when you consider that the humna body only contains about six liters of blood, it is obvious that my blood volume must be smaller after this kind of exercise. (By how much? Nobody knows.)

My point? Virtually all blood tests measure the concentration of something per standard volume of blood. Decrease the circulating volume of blood and you automatically increase the concentration of the elements in the blood.

In other words, if you take a blood test, go exercise and sweat out a huge amount of water, and then have the same blood test, almost everything in your blood results will be higher (except for the sodium you have lost in sweat).

There are several things that decrease the body's level of hydration (and, if you are retaining water or suffering from wieght-gain edema, this is a good thing). One is sweating during exercise. Another is eating a high-protein diet--especially in the early stages.

The implicit presumption of all blood tests is that your state of hydration is the same as in all previous tests. In other words, blood tests are only approximations of what is happening in our bodies, and you need to see a sizeable and prolonged trend in those numbers before you draw conclusions.

One way to avoid this problem is to look at ratios rather than the numbers (http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/523.cfm)alone. One of the most important ratios is the triglyceride/HDL ratio. "Ideal" is considered 2 or less; yours is slightly less than 1!

Your HDL/Total Cholesterol level is 0.241. "Ideal" is considered 0.24 and over, so you're ideal there as well.

Inther words, you are wringing your hands over a blood test that has shown your lipid profile to be perfect. If you doctor isn't aware that they need to be looking at these ratios, then perhaps they need to take one of those medical refresher courses. (Unfortunately, many if them need exactly that.)

[maxlharris]

I had my cholesterol checked on week 2 of the Six Week Cure my numbers were: Total: 294 with a LDL of 202, HDL 71 and Trig 70. I read where the formula for deriving LDL would not give an accurate LDL # if the Trig # was under a 100; so on week 5 I returned to the Dr. and requested a direct LDL only. My Dr. was glad to do this and called today with a direct LDL result of 217!!!

You are not comparing apples to apples.

As you noted in the highlighted portion, the indirect measurement of LDL is sketchy when triglycerides are low. This caused you to get a DIFFERENT test. The results of the sketchy measurement and the direct measurement should probably not be compared.