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

Interesting times on LCHF

At my first retest after diagnosis I got Tg/HDL of 3.2 which is labelled as Normal.
It was done fasting.
It was just about then, I think that my BG levels began bouncing around and I stopped losing weight, which I put down to reducing insulin resistance. I might have assumed correctly.
 
Given mine is 6.17 that doesn't make comfortable reading.
 
LittleGreyCat said:
Given mine is 6.17 that doesn't make comfortable reading.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Basically it is just your LDL that needs attention, and maybe increased HDL which would help. Other than all the omega3 stuff and antioxidants I can't suggest anything else. Perhaps you could ask for another test in case that one was skewed in some way, or has your LDL always been on the high side?
 
Bluetit1802 said:
The latest NICE recommendations for assessing CVD risk is to use the Non-HDL amount

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181/chapter/2-Implementation-getting-started

Non HDL is what it says - Total minus HDL

I got the below levels from somewhere on the internet, but I have lost the link

above 220 mg/dL (5.7 mmol/L) is considered very high
190 – 219 mg/dL (4.9 – 5.6 mmol/L) is considered high
160– 189 mg/dL (4.1 – 4.8 mmol/L) is considered borderline high
130 – 159 mg/dL (3.4 – 4.0 mmol/L) is considered near ideal
below 130 mg/dL (below 3.4 mmol/L) is considered ideal for people at risk of heart disease
below 100 mg/dL (below 2.6 mmol/L) is considered ideal for people at very high risk of heart disease

Heart UK says ideally it should be 4mmol/l or less.
https://heartuk.org.uk/health-and-high-cholesterol/cholesterol-tests---know-your-number
Click to expand...

I did note that Heart UK are "the cholesterol charity" and a major advocate of statins.

Could they be the equivalent of Diabetes UK and the Eatwell Plate?
 
Bluetit1802 said:
No, it doesn't. Basically it is just your LDL that needs attention, and maybe increased HDL which would help. Other than all the omega3 stuff and antioxidants I can't suggest anything else. Perhaps you could ask for another test in case that one was skewed in some way, or has your LDL always been on the high side?
Click to expand...

My HDL is already above the recommended level.

I'm still trying to get my head around the role of cholesterol; LDL does several things including transporting triglycerides which are fuel. That part is good as I am fuelled mainly by triglycerides at the moment.

The issue seems to be that I have a lot of cholesterol in my LDL which is pushing up the total LDL. Triglyceride levels seem fine.

Every time I look at a new source I see different and often conflicting information.
 
LittleGreyCat said:
I did note that Heart UK are "the cholesterol charity" and a major advocate of statins.

Could they be the equivalent of Diabetes UK and the Eatwell Plate?
Click to expand...

Here is another link from the same site you quoted earlier
http://www.docsopinion.com/health-and-nutrition/lipids/non-hdl-cholesterol-non-hdl-c/


LittleGreyCat said:
My HDL is already above the recommended level.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is just above the bottom of the range (1.2 to 3.5). If you could raise that, all your ratios would automatically improve. My ratios are superb, but my HDL is 2.51.

LittleGreyCat said:
I'm still trying to get my head around the role of cholesterol; LDL does several things including transporting triglycerides which are fuel. That part is good as I am fuelled mainly by triglycerides at the moment.

The issue seems to be that I have a lot of cholesterol in my LDL which is pushing up the total LDL. Triglyceride levels seem fine.

Every time I look at a new source I see different and often conflicting information.
Click to expand...

Frustrating isn't it! I don't know what the answer is. If I did I could earn a small fortune. :)
 
I had been eating fat from meats and so when I was seeing 'near optimal' Normal and even Ideal - admittedly with a couple of borderlines and expected comments I was fairly astonished - that combined with the lower than ever dreamed possible Hba1c was quite a shock.
It is just a pity that no one other than me seemed to care about it - just a bit of research on good results could help a lot rather than the 'take the tablets' mentality which seems to prevail.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
<snip>
Yes, it is just above the bottom of the range (1.2 to 3.5). If you could raise that, all your ratios would automatically improve. My ratios are superb, but my HDL is 2.51.
<snip>
Click to expand...

Now, on the EMIS system my surgery uses, the good range for HDL is shown as 0.9 - 1.45 mmol/L.
So by their terms my HDL is too high.
Pick a number, any number.

To paraphrase Groucho Marx "Those are my target values. If you don't like them I have others."
 
LittleGreyCat said:
Now, on the EMIS system my surgery uses, the good range for HDL is shown as 0.9 - 1.45 mmol/L.
So by their terms my HDL is too high.
Pick a number, any number.

To paraphrase Groucho Marx "Those are my target values. If you don't like them I have others."
Click to expand...

How strange.

It is the test lab that dictates the reference ranges, not Emis or Patient Access. It says 1.2 to 3.5 on all my print outs going back several years, and the same on my on-line test results.
 
Back
Top