• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

What is 'Real LDL'?

Colin of Kent

Colin of Kent

Well-Known Member
In his 'Diabetes Solution' book, Dr Bernstein makes reference to measuring something he calls 'real LDL', but he doesn't seem to explain what he means by that (unless I've missed it - I haven't read the appendices exhaustively). Can anyone here enlighten me?
 
So faras I know LDL is usually calculated using a formula .. the name of which escapes me.. maybe "Real LDL" is LDL that has actually been measured rather than calculated?
@Bluetit1802 is usually more on the ball than me about that!
 
"
How Is LDL Cholesterol Calculated?
Cholesterol levels are measured in milligrams (mg) of cholesterol per deciliter (dL) of blood in the US and some other countries. Canada and most European countries measure cholesterol in millimoles (mmol) per liter (L) of blood.

Blood tests typically report LDL-C. These numbers are usually based on calculation, using the Friedewald equation that includes total cholesterol, HDL-C, and triglycerides. This equation relies on the assumption that the ratio of triglyceride to cholesterol is constant, which is not always the case.

If mg/dl is your unit, like in the United States the formula looks like this:

LDL cholesterol = [Total cholesterol] – [HDL cholesterol] – [TG]:5

If mmol/l is your unit like in Australia, Canada, and Europe the formula looks like this:

LDL cholesterol = [Total cholesterol] – [HDL cholesterol] – [TG]:2.2

Thus, LDL-C calculations may have limitations when blood triglyceride levels are either high or low. Direct LDL -C measurements are also available, but are less often done due to higher costs.

Some studies show that the number of LDL particles (LDL-P) may be a better predictor of risk than LDL-C. LDL particle size may also be important when assessing risk."
 
bulkbiker said:
Thus, LDL-C calculations may have limitations when blood triglyceride levels are either high or low.
Click to expand...

How low is low? Do we know? I wonder if mine are low according to that, at 0.6. According to the standard range on my lab reports, the range starts at zero. So presumably if we have no trigs we are still normal.
 
bulkbiker said:
So faras I know LDL is usually calculated using a formula .. the name of which escapes me.. maybe "Real LDL" is LDL that has actually been measured rather than calculated?
@Bluetit1802 is usually more on the ball than me about that!
Click to expand...

There are two formulas for calculating LDL, Friedewald and Iranian :
https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=ldl+iranian+formula&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

The limitations of the Friedewald equation are explained here (overestimating LDL on a low carb diet) :
https://www.docsopinion.com/2017/01/02/ldl-cholesterol-overestimated-low-carb-high-fat-lchf-diet/
Geoff
 
Bluetit1802 said:
How low is low? Do we know? I wonder if mine are low according to that, at 0.6. According to the standard range on my lab reports, the range starts at zero. So presumably if we have no trigs we are still normal.
Click to expand...
"Statistical analysis showed that when triglyceride is <100 mg/dL, calculated low- density lipoprotein cholesterol is significantly overestimated"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426324
100 mg/dL equates to 2.6 mmol/L
**Correction** THIS IS WRONG. It equates to 1.13 mmol/L
Geoff
edited for correction (thread explains why)
 
Last edited:
librarising said:
"Statistical analysis showed that when triglyceride is <100 mg/dL, calculated low- density lipoprotein cholesterol is significantly overestimated"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18426324
100 mg/dL equates to 2.6 mmol/L
Geoff
Click to expand...

Interesting. I don't consider 2.6mmol/l low. I consider it high! 1.9mmol/l is the top end of the normal standard range for fasting, and up to 2.3mmol/ not fasting, which means most of us have what they say is low trigs, whether low carb or not.
 
bulkbiker said:
Isn't 100mg/dl - 5.5 mmol/l? does the divide by 18 rule not apply when its triglycerides?
Click to expand...
We're both wrong. I'd searched a trigs converter, and failed to notice it was a cholesterol converter !
It's blood readings that convert at a ratio of 18.
Since mg/dL is measuring something different in nature to mmol/L, US mg/dL measurements of cholesterol and trigs convert at different rates to UK mmol/L.
Cholesterol : 1 mmol/L = 38.8 mg/dL
Triglycerides : 1 mmol/L = 88.5 mg/dL

So 100 mg/dL is not 2.6 mmol/L but 1.13 mmol/L
This is why US trigs/HDL ratios are roughly twice UK ratios.

Hope that makes sense !
Geoff
 
Bluetit1802 said:
No, it doesn't. It is a different calculation. I used to know it, but have forgotten.

Just seen your above post. :) Well done, that makes more sense than the one @librarising came up with. So basically, under 1.1mmol/l is low.
Click to expand...
****** complicated all these differing units.. Interesting though that Blood Glucose converts by dividing by 18 but trigs don't even though the units are the same.. mg/dl to mmol/l ...

Ed by mod for language.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
librarising said:
We're both wrong. I'd searched a trigs converter, and failed to notice it was a cholesterol converter !
It's blood readings that convert at a ratio of 18.
Since mg/dL is measuring something different in nature to mmol/L, US mg/dL measurements of cholesterol and trigs convert at different rates to UK mmol/L.
Cholesterol : 1 mmol/L = 38.8 mg/dL
Triglycerides : 1 mmol/L = 88.5 mg/dL

So 100 mg/dL is not 2.6 mmol/L but 1.13 mmol/L
This is why US trigs/HDL ratios are roughly twice UK ratios.

Hope that makes sense !
Geoff
Click to expand...
Ah so that explains my post above.. thanks Geoff
 
The molecular weight of triglyceride is different to that of glucose so a mole of each substance will have a different weight and the conversion to mg/dl is not the same.
 
Back
Top