• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Cholesterol levels high

C

Countryside_Yoyo_

Active Member
Messages
41
Type of diabetes
Prediabetes
Treatment type
Diet only
I’ve just had my latest cholesterol levels done. (57 years old female) thanks to advice from this group I’ve been eating very low carb for the last 3 years since I was diagnosed prediabetic with an Hba1c of 45. It’s now 38/39 and has stayed that way for the last 3 years - I have lost 3 stone as well and have a BMI of 22.5 by eating low carb (20-30g per day) and have kept it all off.

Levels today are as follows (a fasting test this time)
Total cholesterol 8.4
HDL 3.1
LDL 5.0
Triglycerides 0.6

Two years ago it was total cholesterol 7.9 with HDL at 2..8 (non fasting)so it’s gone up even more in total but the HDL cholesterol is even better.....any thoughts for me? Should I be worried? Putting the figures into a ratio calculator says they’re all excellent but my total cholesterol is high risk and LDL is extremely high risk.
I have read that statins aren’t a good idea for over 50’s women so I’m inclined to refuse if offered by the doctor.
I’d really appreciate any opinions and advice as I’d like something to be able to go back to my doctor with.
 
I wouldn't recommend trying to argue with your doctor. Just say that you have carefully considered the recommendation to take statins and are declining.
 
It is believed by many experts that if the trigs are low, which yours are, then the LDL particles will mostly be the big fluffy sort that do no harm, only good. It is the small hard particles that do the damage. Unfortunately in the UK we don't routinely have the particle tests.

I don't feel it is necessary to argue with the doctor, or try persuasion tactics. Just do as @NoCrbs4Me said and decline politely.
 
Hope you can get your cholesterol down, please be aware that strokes can occur with high cholesterol.
Take care
 
Wow that's one of the best Trig/HDL ratios I have ever seen!
They reckon anything below 0.87 is excellent and yours is 0.194!
Don't worry about that at all.. well done you should be celebrating.. and if your doctor knew anything they would be too..
 
bulkbiker said:
Wow that's one of the best Trig/HDL ratios I have ever seen!
They reckon anything below 0.87 is excellent and yours is 0.194!
Don't worry about that at all.. well done you should be celebrating.. and if your doctor knew anything they would be too..
Click to expand...

Thanks, feeling more positive now. My doc didn’t push the statins last time, and total cholesterol was high then (7.9) and most of the rise this time to 8.4 has been HDL so that’s encouraging. I’ve never cheated since I started eating low carb 3 years ago, eat extremely healthily (my hubby looks at my plate and says you’re gonna live forever) so don’t think there’s much I can change dietary wise either.
It just seems bizarre that all the ratios are ideal yet the figures are high. But then it’s only the pesky LDL that’s pulling my chain
 
On BBC news this morning. A study has shown that statins are ineffective in 50%(?) of cases. This was being explained by manufacturers as patients 'not taking them properly'. I smell a rat.....!
 
Just wanted to say that the calculator is quite off putting. It's really strange that it says that all the ratio's are ideal which they are and then in big red letters it says high risk and very high risk!! It would be better if it then gave an explanation as to why. If the overall figure and LDL is no big deal, why does it do that? Just wondered.
 
Dr Snoddy said:
On BBC news this morning. A study has shown that statins are ineffective in 50%(?) of cases. This was being explained by manufacturers as patients 'not taking them properly'. I smell a rat.....!
Click to expand...

That's business for you, and they're not interested in people's health, just what is in their bank account. When the evidence doesn't go their way, they just blame the consumer. Typical baseless response.
 
Dr Snoddy said:
On BBC news this morning. A study has shown that statins are ineffective in 50%(?) of cases. This was being explained by manufacturers as patients 'not taking them properly'. I smell a rat.....!
Click to expand...

I saw that......,the other explanation given was that they weren’t on a high enough dose........rat pong indeed
 
Last edited:
The calc still follows the old thinking with its reds and greens but is still useful for the calculations.. we just need to be able to interpret the numbers in the light of more recent thinking.
 

Hopefully doctors are learning to take the bits that are important and discard the other bits. As you say makes no sense to have scary red letter warning and then below that all the ratios are tip-top green! They should just say the ratios are the most important part to note.
 

Agreed, but a lot just see the TC and LDL and think you need statins.
 
Tophat1900 said:
Agreed, but a lot just see the TC and LDL and think you need statins.
Click to expand...

And even if the TC and LDL are perfect, if diabetes is present or you are over a certain age, they still think you need statins.
The ridiculous Q-Risk formula is to blame.
 

Hi @Countryside_Yoyo_,

Have you had a look at the info on lean mass hyper-responders by Dave Feldman. You might fit the description -- or at least be very, very close to it.

Here's a link -- if you are interested: https://cholesterolcode.com/lmhr/
 
Bluetit1802 said:
And even if the TC and LDL are perfect, if diabetes is present or you are over a certain age, they still think you need statins.
The ridiculous Q-Risk formula is to blame.
Click to expand...

You'd think it was developed by statin manufactures it's so badly flawed.
 
Dr Snoddy said:
On BBC news this morning. A study has shown that statins are ineffective in 50%(?) of cases. This was being explained by manufacturers as patients 'not taking them properly'. I smell a rat.....!
Click to expand...

Is this what was reported? More nonsense, poorly written with a staggering lack of fact checking. I smell the same rat.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-47933345
 
ziggy_w said:
Hi @Countryside_Yoyo_,

Have you had a look at the info on lean mass hyper-responders by Dave Feldman. You might fit the description -- or at least be very, very close to it.

Here's a link -- if you are interested: https://cholesterolcode.com/lmhr/
Click to expand...

How interesting - yes I tick all the boxes for lipids, my body fat is around 23% but I’m not super skinny or an athlete. But yes that sounds like my results exactly. I’ll look more into it, thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…