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

Cholesterol Numbers

Got the results of my Cholesterol and Hba1c
Hba1c 40 so fine.
Been on Cholesterol lowering tablets for 6 months.
Total down at 6.8 (hasn't been that since 80's)
HDL 1.72
Non Hdl 5.12
Trig 5.9 (which has always been very low)
Not sure what to make of it.
 
You'll have a number for LDL ?

This is a whole topic to itself, but statins are effective at reducing the number of LDL particles as measured by the lipid panel test.
That is either:
Desirable for almost everyone
Irrelevant, particularly for anyone with low blood glucose and insulin, or following a low carb regime.
Not precise enough, because it's the size and distribution of the LDL particles that really matters.

Where you fall on that list really depends on what your thoughts are relating to what heart disease really is.
It derives directly from the fear that saturated fat leads to high LDL which leads to increased risk of heart disease. Given that statistically, most people with Diabetes die of heart disease, that sounds scary, but you are here because you are not a statistic, and the science behind the fear is just getting weaker all the time. Serum lipids are very important, but the situation is more nuanced than we are often told. (at least that's my reading).

The only thing that jumps out is the triglyceride level - is that really 5.9? - my set of last results are largely similar, but serum triglyceride is 0.8 mmol/L (range expected 0.0 - 1.7)

Triglycerides are the strings of fatty acids stored in the particles which are being measured (the L in HDL or LDL) - so it's really a measure of the level of circulating fat - this is more related to visceral fat than weight or what we tend to mean when we say "fat".
 
Chris24Main said:
You'll have a number for LDL ?

This is a whole topic to itself, but statins are effective at reducing the number of LDL particles as measured by the lipid panel test.
That is either:
Desirable for almost everyone
Irrelevant, particularly for anyone with low blood glucose and insulin, or following a low carb regime.
Not precise enough, because it's the size and distribution of the LDL particles that really matters.

Where you fall on that list really depends on what your thoughts are relating to what heart disease really is.
It derives directly from the fear that saturated fat leads to high LDL which leads to increased risk of heart disease. Given that statistically, most people with Diabetes die of heart disease, that sounds scary, but you are here because you are not a statistic, and the science behind the fear is just getting weaker all the time. Serum lipids are very important, but the situation is more nuanced than we are often told. (at least that's my reading).

The only thing that jumps out is the triglyceride level - is that really 5.9? - my set of last results are largely similar, but serum triglyceride is 0.8 mmol/L (range expected 0.0 - 1.7)

Triglycerides are the strings of fatty acids stored in the particles which are being measured (the L in HDL or LDL) - so it's really a measure of the level of circulating fat - this is more related to visceral fat than weight or what we tend to mean when we say "
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the reply .Shall have to investigate as can't see LDL. My Triglycerides have always been low. (last one 1.3) Only since taking the statin has it gone up. Can't find LDL. Only Non HDL and Total.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it was causation or coincidence, but way back when I was on a statin my trigs were ate their highest and both HDL and LDL were at their lowest.
Now off statins and low carbing, my HDL almost doubled and my Trigs almost halved. There are lots of numbers bandied about, when statins first were being prescribed, I think that it was only for those with a non-HDL of over 7 or so. Since then, the Pharma companies have persuaded doctors to prescribe them at lower and lower thresholds. I find it informative that Akira Endo, the Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of statins (who died age 90) initially refused to take them himself. Later in life he changed his mind after he couldn't control his LDL by exercise alone.

I personally wouldn't consider Trigs of 1.3 to be low - under 1.0 is low just as HDL is high when it is over 2.0 but I just ignore my LDL since apart from my LDL being slightly lower than their cut-off, I fit the Lean Mass Hyper-responder phenotype.
 
@ianf0ster - the 1.3 figure for Trigs wasn't the one I was interested in; @filly says that this is what it used to be - current reading is 5.9 - that seems high to me. I should point out that while I have statins in the cupboard, I`ve never taken them, it could well be that the effect of the statin (to reduce the cholesterol making capability throughout the body, thus lowering LDL particles) simply makes those LDL particles more full of triglycerides, since there is the same amount to go around fewer carriers..

I don't know - what I'm saying is that I haven't any reason to be saying that 5.9 is high, per se... I'm not a doctor..
 
Just read my results again. I think the way it is worked out has changed.
It says between 4.5- 9.9
So at the lower range at 5.99
I think....
 
Chris24Main said:
Given that statistically, most people with Diabetes die of heart disease, that sounds scary, but you are here because you are not a statistic, and the science behind the fear is just getting weaker all the time
Click to expand...
Good point @Chris24Main .

For me there are two points here.

One is those statistics you mention, which to my mind include everyone who has little choice but to follow the eatwell & die escued by far too many medical 'experts'.

And if my diabetes course was an indicator, probably still accounted at time of my DX at 90+% of those with T2D.
(Think I was the only one out of 20 with a clue about low carb, & I include the trainers )

A number hopefully decreasing as more find refuge here and learn about low carb & it's real impact on T2D.

Recently had some issues non diabetic related, so lots of time in hospitals & surgery .

At recent appointment I asked how many at my surgery ,did as well as I did, when I got from 58 hab1c to 40 in just over 9 months, when my T2D came up as part of the conversation.

A quick check in computer and none, was the answer.

Yet no one there asked how I did it .....mmhh.

And I agree fully on trigs .

Mine where at 5-6 for a decade, no one considered it important enough to mention.

At DX it was, "your diabetic, see you in a few months time" .

Cue worry & a little panic .

A search online eventually got me here

I took note of the success many had with low carb, dabbled a bit, before getting fully immersed in it

DX in august 2018, non diabetic figs by June 2019.

And despite eating the worst foods I could eat (according to many so called experts)
I got all my lipids into the zone of excellent or optimal .

So the stats to my mind, include all those failed by their surgeries & all those indifferent or unable to alter their lifestyle food choices for whatever reasons .

Ergo 90+% of diabetics die of x.

Because too many listen to what they tell us to do & eat, which is not good for us .

Which doesn't to my mind reflect on the many on here making positive & informed decisions on what they should and shouldn't eat as T2D's

Tl:dr
Trigs are an important figure
5 is too high .

Next gen reports INCLUDING low carb devotees will show a marked improvement, imho
 
Last edited:
Back
Top