At 39, your HDL is still borderline. That's surprising, since exercise will usually raise it.
Excellent! What dose of Rosuvastatin are you on? I read (I think it was Jason Fung) that low dose Rosuvastatin (5mg) is really effective at lowering inflammation, while not overdosing you on the statin. With those numbers you might want to talk to your doctor about the lower dose. Of course, if you're one of those that doesn't have statin side effects it may not matter. But it would be nice to get a reading based on the low dose too, just to see how whether it's worthwhile to take it or not. But congrats on an excellent set of numbers.
Usually a higher fat diet will also raise your HDL. It certainly did for me. It probably hasn’t been long enough on keto for TIME2 to see those results.
I had an 8% increase, I thought that was pretty good, hope it does increase.
My last four tests were 30, 33, 36, and 39, it's going the right direction.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It's just that you still have some ways to go before your HDL level gets to what I would call "good." Keep doing what you're doing and you'll get there sooner rather than later.
My wife's HDL is often above 90!
I'll never get there, but it's nice to see an increase after putting in some effort.
I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It's just that you still have some ways to go before your HDL level gets to what I would call "good." Keep doing what you're doing and you'll get there sooner rather than later.
DH’s HDL is naturally very high, and his triglycerides quite low even before he stopped eating starches/grains. He didn’t go on the strict keto diet, but he did gradually stop eating high carb foods. And his trig/HDL ratio didn’t improve because it was already well below 1! In fact it got a little worse - but still below 1, lol.Yes, but you can ignore the difference -- men and women have different metabolisms to start with, and individual differences are pretty large as well.
I've followed a LCHF diet for about ten years and my HDL is normally in the 80s, occasionally the 90s.
DW, OTOH, follows no particular regime at all, although she sort of tries not to have as many carbs as she used to. And her HDL is always at least the equal of mine if not higher. So don't compare yourself with anyone else. Your progress in a short time is impressive.
So in spite of some impressive blood numbers, including both triglycerides and HDL at 67 and routinely low (below 110) blood pressure, my PCP at my last telemedicine checkup was not happy with my LDL number which went higher with my keto diet and has mostly stayed there. A higher fat diet does that in many folks.
She even mumbled the dreaded statin word and wanted another test in 6 months which will be next month.
In preparation for this, I found several CVD Risk estimators ACA, AHA, etc., put in my numbers, and they all give me the same answer: 2.8% which is just above the 2.6% “optimal” level and well below the 7.5% or 10% 10 year risk threshold that calls for intervention. None of them ask for LDL, although they take total, HDL, blood pressure, etc.
One of the estimators clearly stated - statin not indicated - in my results.
We’ve run into this before with other tests where our PCP seemed very out of date.
My other doctor believes that particle size and ApoB tests just aren’t reliable/consistent yet, and the Triglycerides/HDL ratio gives you a good answer any way. He says calcium score is the way to go if you really want to see what is going on.
I’m not going to do a calcium score yet, now that I see the latest CVD Risk Estimators have my risk at low. I will show those results at my next appointment.
I got the calcium score about ten years ago, and it was a little elevated so my doc had me go for the full CT scan. They didn't find anything really concerning but I might be interested in getting the score again as a comparison. Not in any rush though.
I’m under the impression that more than once doesn’t provide new info?
Thanks, I'll do some digging.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/do-you-need-a-calcium-scan(Note that if your calcium score is higher than zero, there's no point in getting a repeat exam in the future. The calcified portion of the plaque won't disappear, and your treatment advice wouldn't change.)
Yes, the biggest thing I get from reading is that a calcium score really isn't all that useful. One big study showed that nearly half of the sudden cardiac deaths they looked at were in people with zero scores.