High cholesterol on a lchf

[dbr10]

Hello and good morning,I was diagnosed as T2 in October 2015 and started a lchf diet much to the objections of my doctor/diabetic nurse refused Metformin .HBAC1 was 73 Cholesterol 5.9 January 2016 Hbac1 was 49 Cholesterol had shot up to 7.9 they wanted me to go on stations again I refused the mess, I had also lost about 8kgs April 2016 Hbac1 is now at 36 cholesterol is still 7.9 and I have gained 2 kgs, my question to the forum is how to get the cholesterol down on a lchf diet,I do eat/drink a lot of single/double cream sometimes looks like a small dairy in the fridge!!My carbs are somewhere between 20-50 g per day. Any ideas .Thanks
Holmesi34

Having the same problem. Trying good fats now. Had blood test Thursday. Waiting for result. Doctor has referred me to a lipids specialist.

 

[Oldvatr]

Having the same problem. Trying good fats now. Had blood test Thursday. Waiting for result. Doctor has referred me to a lipids specialist.

I suffer a rising TC too, but only slightly. Many on LCHF report good lipds, so it must be possible.
I think the HF in the diet name is a balancing act between weight gain/loss, but also if not burning fat properly then any excess gets stored as fat. First port of call for this storage appears to be the bloods as cholesterol, and then in the adipose tissue as fat. So we need to make sure we are burning fat by ketosis, and by exercise. To guarantee ketosis on LCHF then carbs must be low (could need to be <20g / day but each of us has our own trigger level) and also moderate protein intake to avoid gluconeogenesis. I think some research is needed to correlate this data.

Anyway, please report back here and let us know how you did.

 

[dbr10]

Anyway, please report back here and let us know how you did.

Thank you. Agree with your comments. I think the HF part can be trial and error. Some people report higher TC with saturated fats and recommend the 'better' types of fat. My concern is that Prof Ken Sikaris has stated that most people on LCHF see improved lipid profiles, but about 5pc show an exaggerated cholesterol response, and that might be the explanation.

 

[KevinPotts]

If you eat low carbs (in the range you suggest), modest protein ( say 1g per kilo of weightish), lots of fat (not the toxic stuff such as in concentrated animal feed operation meet, trans or hydrogenated), good and saturated, you'll go into ketosis within a couple of weeks and you will become a fat burner. It is important however as you have already identified to emphasise the fat - healthy levels of protein, low fat and low carbs are just as likely to make you I'll. When i'm feeling light on the fat, I'll have a handful of macadamia nuts ( more good fats and nutrients than probably any other type).

 

[Oldvatr]

If you eat low carbs (in the range you suggest), modest protein ( say 1g per kilo of weightish), lots of fat (not the toxic stuff such as in concentrated animal feed operation meet, trains or hydrogenated), good and saturated, you'll go into ketosis within a couple of weeks and you will become a fat burner. It is important however as you have already identified to emphasis the fat - healthy levels of protein, low fat and low carbs are just as likely to make you I'll. When i'm feeling light on the fat, I'll have a handful of macadamia nuts ( more good fats and nutrients than probably any other type).

Indeed, once the intake levels of carb and protein are set at the level needed to trigger ketosis, then the remaining control we use is indeed fat. If we intake more fat than we are burning, then it goes into fat storage and we add weight, if it is less then we burn fat from store, and lose weight, and then in addition, we need to add fat to keep our energy levels at the level we are burning if our fat stores are getting low. Question is, how do we know we are in ketosis? I use Ketostix, but they are next to useless. How do you know when you are 'feeling light on fat'? If I am trying to put on weight, how do I make sure my lipids don't go overboard?

There are many unanswered questions I fear. Most of the LCHF seminars etc seem to gloss over this aspect of the diet. The problem is that the lipid panel only gets done after 3 months if that, so is often too late to make sensible corrections. So at the moment I am in the dark as to whether I am overdoing the fat (apart from weighing myself daily)

 

[Brunneria]

Indeed, once the intake levels of carb and protein are set at the level needed to trigger ketosis, then the remaining control we use is indeed fat. If we intake more fat than we are burning, then it goes into fat storage and we add weight, if it is less then we burn fat from store, and lose weight, and then in addition, we need to add fat to keep our energy levels at the level we are burning if our fat stores are getting low. Question is, how do we know we are in ketosis? I use Ketostix, but they are next to useless. How do you know when you are 'feeling light on fat'? If I am trying to put on weight, how do I make sure my lipids don't go overboard?

There are many unanswered questions I fear. Most of the LCHF seminars etc seem to gloss over this aspect of the diet. The problem is that the lipid panel only gets done after 3 months if that, so is often too late to make sensible corrections. So at the moment I am in the dark as to whether I am overdoing the fat (apart from weighing myself daily)

There are other ways of measuring ketosis.

Some of the glucose meters have strips that test blood ketones. Not sure of all the brand names, but I know that Freestyle Neo does - because I have one. The strips are, of course, more expensive.

Then there is a gadget called the Ketonix. Again, expensive, but I suppose it would depend on usage. IF used regularly it could turn out to be much LESS expensive than the keto blood testing strips.
Here is a link
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ketonix-Bl...e=UTF8&qid=1462122504&sr=8-1&keywords=ketonix

Personally, I don't bother with any testing method at all. The longer you spend on a very low carb diet, the more aware you become of how your body feels - energy levels, muscle aches, mental clarity. I think I spend surprisingly little time in ketosis, but am always fat adapted (see article link below) so I am happy.
http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2016/01/dont-be-a-ketard1.html
I love this article series.

I know immediately when I have had too many carbs, it feels like putting sugar in the tank and then trying to drive the car up a hill.

 

[Oldvatr]

There are other ways of measuring ketosis.

Some of the glucose meters have strips that test blood ketones. Not sure of all the brand names, but I know that Freestyle Neo does - because I have one. The strips are, of course, more expensive.

Then there is a gadget called the Ketonix. Again, expensive, but I suppose it would depend on usage. IF used regularly it could turn out to be much LESS expensive than the keto blood testing strips.
Here is a link
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ketonix-Bl...e=UTF8&qid=1462122504&sr=8-1&keywords=ketonix

Personally, I don't bother with any testing method at all. The longer you spend on a very low carb diet, the more aware you become of how your body feels - energy levels, muscle aches, mental clarity. I think I spend surprisingly little time in ketosis, but am always fat adapted (see article link below) so I am happy.
http://www.tuitnutrition.com/2016/01/dont-be-a-ketard1.html
I love this article series.

I know immediately when I have had too many carbs, it feels like putting sugar in the tank and then trying to drive the car up a hill.

Thanks, I am still left wondering about lipids, but less worried about the colour of my ketostix. I suppose losing girth is a sign of fat burning. I get no other signs tho.

 

[KevinPotts]

One of the things I learned this week is that high Trigs, (mine were 3.6 which is off the charts when I had my first HbAC1) invariably correlate with sad LCL, these are the small particles that exacerbate the likelihood of atherosclerosis. The latest analysis of the meta data from numerous RCTs positively indicates that a LCHF diet will suppress the Trigs, sdLCL, raise HDL(the good stuff), so I'm looking forward to my next lipid panel and HbAC1

 

[Oldvatr]

One of the things I learned this week is that high Trigs, (mine were 3.6 which is off the charts when I had my first HbAC1) invariably correlate with sad LCL, these are the small particles that exacerbate the likelihood of atherosclerosis. The latest analysis of the meta data from numerous RCTs positively indicates that a LCHF diet will suppress the Trigs, sdLCL, raise HDL(the good stuff), so I'm looking forward to my next lipid panel and HbAC1

Statistics are wonderful, they can tell any story you want. I happen to agree with you about this meta study, but it is currently standing out on its own. I take note of several people on this site who report their lipid's growing worse (myself included) even though we are doing LCHF. Some mechanism is happening or not happening, , and I would like to try to understand it, and take correcting action. Whilst the Sikaris seminars are interesting, it is not PROOF and what he says may turn out to be snake oil. I hope not, but until there is more independant scientific work done that correlates it, then I remain sceptical.

 

[KevinPotts]

Oldvatr, perhaps even though your LDL has increased, together with total cholesterol and ratios, have you had a subfraction profile carried out. This will provide you with the sizes within the categories. Many people find their LDL-C in particular increasing, but their sdLDL decreasing, thus suggesting the increase in LDL is not the entire story. I think the challenge is that these subfraction profiles are not as readily accessible in the UK - they cost around £100- yikes!

 

[Oldvatr]

Oldvatr, perhaps even though your LDL has increased, together with total cholesterol and ratios, have you had a subfraction profile carried out. This will provide you with the sizes within the categories. Many people find their LDL-C in particular increasing, but their sdLDL decreasing, thus suggesting the increase in LDL is not the entire story. I think the challenge is that these subfraction profiles are not as readily accessible in the UK - they cost around £100- yikes!

I had a real struggle to get my lipids checked at all, These tests have all been stopped by my GP practice, and I only got my last one because of the possibility of hereditary disease since my TC was already high when I statrted LCHF. I have requested a repeat test with my next HbA1c, but my GP has not yet responded. As far as my GP is concerned aTC reading is all he needs to justify statins, and the rest is cosmetic and diet related, so is not a health issue Even my history of 2 strokes and a heart attack does not entitle me to special treatment, since the answer is statins. Diet is not the answer, especially a HIGH FAT diet! Good grief, if I persist then I do not deserve these expensive tests.

Anyway, rising trigs is a sign of sdLDL so that test is the one I need. I accept LDL may rise as fat intake increases, but a falling HDL is not good news either. This is after 6 months of LCHF, so was not expected, hence my concern. It seems I am not alone.

I am not yet convinced by the Guru's glibspeak and fancy bloggers who put forward theories that sound feasible but have no real evidence to back them up. Yes there are several here that report good lipid results by following LCHF, and many report weight loss. I don't need or want weight loss, so I am pushing the FAT button. Does this screw up my lipids, and if my trend continues, am I putting myself at risk? That is the question raised by the OP. I also query the same thing, since I do not yet have the answers.

 

[Nidge247]

When I first went lchf my cholesterol shot up to 7.9 . I endured the agony of statins for 3 months before weaning off as the muscle loss was too painful to endure any longer. Using purely cholesterol lowering yoghurt drinks, it was down to 6.4 at the next test 8 weeks later, and is expected to continue to fall.

Since going lchf my overall health has improved dramatically, I've lost the excess fat on my middle which I've been stuck with for years, and my insulin requirements are all-but wiped out. (Save for meals in excess of 30g carbs, which generally are only when eating out).

 

[Oldvatr]

When I first went lchf my cholesterol shot up to 7.9 . I endured the agony of statins for 3 months before weaning off as the muscle loss was too painful to endure any longer. Using purely cholesterol lowering yoghurt drinks, it was down to 6.4 at the next test 8 weeks later, and is expected to continue to fall.

Since going lchf my overall health has improved dramatically, I've lost the excess fat on my middle which I've been stuck with for years, and my insulin requirements are all-but wiped out. (Save for meals in excess of 30g carbs, which generally are only when eating out).

Well done. I too refused to continue statins. If you think about it, a keto diet based on LC implies we need fat for energy to make up for carb loss, and this will probably mean more LDL transporters in the blood. I was on Ezetimibe which is like a statin but reduces LDL artificially, so I wonder if taking a statin is actually harmful if we are in ketosis by artificially blocking or removing the availability of fat? I have raised a safety concern with my GP over this, but he has decided not to respond.

 

[Oldvatr]

When I first went lchf my cholesterol shot up to 7.9 . I endured the agony of statins for 3 months before weaning off as the muscle loss was too painful to endure any longer. Using purely cholesterol lowering yoghurt drinks, it was down to 6.4 at the next test 8 weeks later, and is expected to continue to fall.

Since going lchf my overall health has improved dramatically, I've lost the excess fat on my middle which I've been stuck with for years, and my insulin requirements are all-but wiped out. (Save for meals in excess of 30g carbs, which generally are only when eating out).

Possibly good news here
http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/08/15/...ith-lower-risk-of-death-in-older-individuals/

 

[Brunneria]

Possibly good news here
http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/08/15/...ith-lower-risk-of-death-in-older-individuals/

Thanks for finding this.
Need to send it to my Dad (85 yrs).
He is extraordinarily proud of his low Cholesterol.

 

[Oldvatr]

Thanks for finding this.
Need to send it to my Dad (85 yrs).
He is extraordinarily proud of his low Cholesterol.

I did find the text / abstract for the actual study, but I did not save it and I lost it. Think it is in pubmed archives. but may be an MIT study so in US archive? It definitely exists, but one needs to understand meta statistics to get to grips with it. The news blog explains it better.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I did find the text / abstract for the actual study, but I did not save it and I lost it. Think it is in pubmed archives. but may be an MIT study so in US archive? It definitely exists, but one needs to understand meta statistics to get to grips with it. The news blog explains it better.

Isn't this the same bathtub curve that is always bandied about?
Even this re-hash is two years old.

 

[KevinPotts]

Possibly good news here
http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/08/15/...ith-lower-risk-of-death-in-older-individuals/

Thanks. Nice and clear. I've seen Dr Biffa a number of times and he always assembles, clear cogent arguments.

 

[Oldvatr]

Isn't this the same bathtub curve that is always bandied about?
Even this re-hash is two years old.

Not the same bathtub, the new one is longer, and considers the mortality rate according to age, not just TC level. It shows that at 85 then a TC of 8 or more still leads to a lower mortality risk than someone under 3 mmol/l It is also not the same as that which was used to justify statin use.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Not the same bathtub, the new one is longer, and considers the mortality rate according to age, not just TC level. It shows that at 85 then a TC of 8 or more still leads to a lower mortality risk than someone under 3 mmol/l It is also not the same as that which was used to justify statin use.

He's talking about total cholesterol in his blog, so using a number that has just been shown to be pretty meaningless in this thread.
That's the only study with any sort of numbers.
The big question should be, how many died over 8, and how many managed to run there numbers down to 3, and have it kill them?
I would hazard a guess the first group is a larger quantity.
He does make a reference to another study specifically for over 80's, and another one for over 85's, but no details.
So not a lot new.