- This topic has 9 voices and 22 replies.
-
Posts
-
This is also a great podcast on the topic of cholesterol and saturated fat for health: http://www.bulletproofexec.com/podcast-16-everything-you-need-to-know-about-saturated-fat-cholesterol-with-chris-masterjohn/From my (basic) understanding, there's a lot more to heart disease than dietary intake of saturated fat and cholesterol. After all, Inuits who traditionally had an insanely high % of their dietary calories coming from fat had extremely low rates of heart disease -- however, apparently they did have fairly high arterial plaque levels. This suggests that it's the things missing from their diets (carbs, processed foods) that are to blame for heart disease not dietary fat + cholesterol.Another good article: http://www.ralphgolanmd.com/cholesterol.htm"But there are several populations in the world with significant plaque in their arteries (Greenland Eskimos, Somalis, Masai, and the Udaipur of northern India) who have a very low incidence of heart attacks. These populations, incidentally, have a very high-fat diet. So did Americans at the beginning of this century. We ate as much saturated fat then as Americans did in 1961, when deaths from heart attacks in this country were near an all-time high - well over 500,000 deaths annually. But heart attacks in the USA were a rare event in 1900. One primary difference in the diet between then and now is the rampant use of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, introduced early in the century. This oil is the result of a process requiring intense heat, which chemically changes what would normally be a liquid oil at room temperature to a solid, and as a result creates what are called trans fatty acids.""Sugar also renders platelets more sticky, and you know how sugar permeates our diet. In the United States, some estimates report refined sugar consumption average to be over 130 pounds per person per year. This is another substantial difference in our diet today compared to 1900. Sugar also can raise blood levels of triglycerides and lower the levels of the favorable HDL cholesterol, increasing susceptibility to heart attacks. Another factor behind heart attack is a lack of essential nutrients in our refined diets. For instance, white flour, even enriched, lacks magnesium (and a host of other important nutrients nature endowed whole grains with). It just so happens that a lack of magnesium contributes to platelet stickiness and coronary artery spasm, as well as rendering the heart far more susceptible to dangerous rhythm disturbances - all of which can lead to heart attacks. The lack of magnesium also increases the chance of stress-induced heart attack. If you consume very little fruit or vegetables, the resultant lack of vitamin C will also make your platelets sticky. The condition of the heart itself, an incredible muscle, can also directly play a role in susceptibility to a heart attack. With inefficient metabolism, it has a lower tolerance for oxygen deprivation and therefore is more likely to incur injury under stress. This will happen with insufficient vital metabolic nutrients such as magnesium, vitamin B6, copper, selenium, coenzyme Q-10, L-carnitine and taurine. A sedentary lifestyle may also render the heart less tolerant of oxygen deprivation."
I wouldn't look at the amount of cholesterol in the body as the opposed as the kind of cholesterol. When doing any kind of deep reading on all these cholesterol articles, it always comes down to large-fluffy-light (good) cholesterol and small-dense-heavy cholesterol (bad), and both are brought up by raises of your LDLs. The point is to lower the small-dense-heavy kind by reducing your sugar and hydrogenated fats (trans) intake.
Although smaller particles tend to be more atherogenic, studies actually show that particle size does not matter, but particle number is what counts. You have to keep in mind these population based observational studies were done in patients on the SAD and very certainly not S.H.I.T's
Just wondering then, I read in a few articles that the large fluffy (pattern A) kind of LDL cholesterol would be much harder to oxidize than the smaller dense (pattern B) kind - which are more susceptible to oxidation; which typically means that the smaller dense kind would lead toward atherosclerosis rather than the large and fluffy kinds.here is an article mentioning this: http://dietheartpublishing.com/node/278This isn't the article I learned it from, but I discovered this sort of information weeks ago when I was studying the effects of LDLs and HDLs on the human body.
One would then need to explain why patients with familial hyperlipidemia (FH) are prone to early cardiovascular disease and it's complications including death. FH patients tend to have large particle size. I believe Chris Kresser (who was quoted in this article) and has recanted a bit on the statement in the article, from podcasts i have recently listen to with him on it
I wouldn't look at the amount of cholesterol in the body as the opposed as the kind of cholesterol. When doing any kind of deep reading on all these cholesterol articles, it always comes down to large-fluffy-light (good) cholesterol and small-dense-heavy cholesterol (bad), and both are brought up by raises of your LDLs. The point is to lower the small-dense-heavy kind by reducing your sugar and hydrogenated fats (trans) intake.
Although smaller particles tend to be more atherogenic, studies actually show that particle size does not matter, but particle number is what counts. You have to keep in mind these population based observational studies were done in patients on the SAD and very certainly not S.H.I.T's
Just wondering then, I read in a few articles that the large fluffy (pattern A) kind of LDL cholesterol would be much harder to oxidize than the smaller dense (pattern B) kind - which are more susceptible to oxidation; which typically means that the smaller dense kind would lead toward atherosclerosis rather than the large and fluffy kinds.here is an article mentioning this: http://dietheartpublishing.com/node/278This isn't the article I learned it from, but I discovered this sort of information weeks ago when I was studying the effects of LDLs and HDLs on the human body.
One would then need to explain why patients with familial hyperlipidemia (FH) are prone to early cardiovascular disease and it's complications including death. FH patients tend to have large particle size. I believe Chris Kresser (who was quoted in this article) and has recanted a bit on the statement in the article, from podcasts i have recently listen to with him on it
Thanks for the info Dr. Patel, I enjoy reading your posts because I find them very useful.I found a beautiful article that occurred in Feb 2012, I read most of the article and just kind of skimmed some of the later parts:http://chriskresser.com/chris-masterjohn-on-cholesterol-and-heart-disease-part-3But here is the related view on what Chris Masterjohn mentioned, and that Chris Kresser happened to agree with:"And the total/HDL cholesterol ratio seems to provide the most information, and particle size and other of these emerging tests probably need to wait on the bench until we can standardize them better and be able to utilize them to provide clearer information than what we have now."The comments are also worth reading since a few people questioned the particle size as well; but both Chrises (Masterjohn and Kresser) responded saying they are waiting for the latest results.From what I read about Familial hyperlipidemias classifications, they are either due to concentrations of LDLs or combination with VLDLS. However, the type Familial hypertriglyceridemia, happens when there is an increase of VLDLs only, which results in higher levels of triglycerides (not cholesterol). I suspect this is more prevalent in people with a history of heart disease or have a just plain ol' bad diet. I am having troubling finding a statistic on the percentage of people in the US has this disease; but I don't also want to be part of that percentage as well.My question though, is if the consumption of saturated fat (increases of LDLs) is bad for you regardless of particle size, what would you recommend to balance that out? This diet uses saturated fats as a staple, is having 4% of polyunsaturated fats (omega 3s) optimal to balance out the high cholesterol in our system? What kinds of foods would be regarded as safe consumption for our diet to improve our HDL %?
After 2 months of successful CNS journey (a solid inch of belly fat caliper reading) I just got my lipid results back:Overall Cholesterol - 298!! up from 170 two years agoLDL - 186 up from 105 two years agoHDL -69 up from 46VLDL 17 down from 19My blood pressure is low, pulse rate 55, no other health risksI'm 5' 9" 164 lbsMy doctor is calling me to carpet - I am petrified he will insist I stop CNSHelp - what do I do????!!
After 2 months of successful CNS journey (a solid inch of belly fat caliper reading) I just got my lipid results back:Overall Cholesterol - 298!! up from 170 two years agoLDL - 186 up from 105 two years agoHDL -69 up from 46VLDL 17 down from 19My blood pressure is low, pulse rate 55, no other health risksI'm 5' 9" 164 lbsMy doctor is calling me to carpet - I am petrified he will insist I stop CNSHelp - what do I do????!!
If you’re eating Paleo foods except on Carb Nite you should be fine, if you want you can change CN foods to clean ones and your numbers should level out over time.Triglycerides
goes uplower when you take sugar out, What’s your Triglycerides #?LDL and over all will go up because of all the fat and beef.HDL will go up when you take out the junk that's in processed foods like trans-fats and omega-6's ... etcWhat's important is that your HDL and Triglycerides go up, the other numbers don't matter.My HDL is 90 and Triglycerides are 75 before CNS while doing Paleo.Over all was 300+ and LDL was 216.So you should only be concerned with HDL and Triglycerides.Your blood press is just fine, the more fit you are the lower it will get but I think the lowest I've heard of was around 45.Just don't take any statins so stay away from the drugs, remember your doctor cannot force you to do anything.
Triglycerides goes DOWN when you take sugar out, What’s your Triglycerides #?I think this is what you meant to say.I am under the impression for a long time now that you wanted your triglycerides to be low and high triglycerides were responsible for problems when combined with sugary SAD diet. My own low carb experience says that my triglycerides plummet when I follow ULC. I have had my Triglycerides down well below 40 when it was much higher under standard diet (not recalling the actual numbers right now).
Triglycerides goes DOWN when you take sugar out, What’s your Triglycerides #?I think this is what you meant to say.I am under the impression for a long time now that you wanted your triglycerides to be low and high triglycerides were responsible for problems when combined with sugary SAD diet. My own low carb experience says that my triglycerides plummet when I follow ULC. I have had my Triglycerides down well below 40 when it was much higher under standard diet (not recalling the actual numbers right now).
Your right, triglycerides are suppose to be low, I must of mis-spelled.thanks
This is a great thread. I can only speak for myself that being ULC for several years before coming to CNS that my overall cholesterol has dropped from 189 to 151. I forget the breakdown. I was eating paleo ULC the same amount of fat I am eating now, this is just my experience though. I had a physical done for life insurance and the 189 was the first draw back in Feb. 2011 (I started paleo in Sept. 2010, I was also pregnant during this blood draw, which may have caused it to be higher). I gave blood in June of 2012 and cholesterol report was 151. I wouldn't want mine to go much lower.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.