High Cholesterol despite correct weight, diet, exercise...What to do?

[razztazz]

If I cut back on carbohydrates, it leaves very little for me to eat, and I do not need to lose weight! I totally agree with eating very little sugary or processed carbohydrates, but if I have to give up cereals, breads, beans, and fruits, I'm gonna look like a skeleton, and snap like a twig. .

I thought I was the only one with this problem. I've always kept my consumption of animal products to a very low level. In January I started having a reaction to the statin I was on so they took me off them. I like eating low carb for all the known reasons weight, trigs, glucose etc. Avoid all the starches. But it's getting hard to eat anything and feel like I've actually eaten. I am not a horse or a cow. I cannot simply stand around all day every day consuming plant matter.

 

[jollystomper]

If I cut back on carbohydrates, it leaves very little for me to eat, and I do not need to lose weight! I totally agree with eating very little sugary or processed carbohydrates, but if I have to give up cereals, breads, beans, and fruits, I'm gonna look like a skeleton, and snap like a twig.

I do not see a problem with eating whole fruits. Yes, they have carbs and sugar, but the studies I have seen indicate what you get in whole, unprocessed fruits is not the issue, the processed carbs/sugar are the issue. It is also difficult to overindulge in fruit. So I do not see you having to give up fruits, just -as in all eating - balance and moderation. The benefits are far greater.

 

[Koolau]

I suppose it's easy to forget, but there are only three macronutrients: fat, protein, and carbohydrates. If you cut down on one, you have to increase one of the others. In general, nobody can eat a huge amount of protein (something in the neighborhood of 20% of your calories seems to be the limit), so it's just a matter of juggling the carbs and fat to get your daily calories.

I'll second the recommendation to read Metabolical by Lustig, especially the first half of the book where he breaks it all down.

IIRC the Adkins weight loss diet is often called a "high protein" diet. In essence, its almost zero carbs and all protein and fat. I would assume that it's considerably more than 20% protein for most people. So you can exist on "all protein." Millions have been on such a diet with relatively few problems that I've heard of.

I tried Adkins and I have decided that it makes weight loss possible because it kills the appetite. Once or twice, back when I was still w*rking, I simply forgot to eat lunch. By the time I got home, I still had no appetite and maybe ate a hamburger or sausage patty - just to say I'd eaten something. The weight flew off. Only problem is "rejoining the world" upon reaching weight goal. Adding back carbs stimulated my apatite and weight came back quickly.

I know, that's a bit off topic, but you can exist on protein (with a bit of fat). I did it for a month. Lost 20 lbs. YMMV

 

[Golden Mean]

If I cut back on carbohydrates, it leaves very little for me to eat, and I do not need to lose weight! I totally agree with eating very little sugary or processed carbohydrates, but if I have to give up cereals, breads, beans, and fruits, I'm gonna look like a skeleton, and snap like a twig.

I dislike fatty food, always have since childhood. I know everybody else here seems to adore bacon, cheese, etc. but they are just not for me in any quantity.

You might look into vegetarian keto (even if if you aren't a vegetarian). Nuts, olives, avocados etc. Also, full fat dairy/creme/butter can help fit the bill. Leaner steaks like NY strip seem pretty non-fatty to me.

 

[JBTX]

This might be good for cholesterol and other important numbers, but I just saw an interview with a guy who eats nothing but McDonalds. IIRC, he has lost about 50 lbs while eating only McDonalds.

The key for him was to reduce portion size. At breakfast, he would split the order, eat half and keep the other half for the next day. At lunch, he ate half of hamburger and fries, and ate the other half for dinner that night.

While it may not be healthy, it's working for him. It's all about volume control.

I’ve been around long enough to see diets where each of fats, carbs and protein were considered good or bad, beyond a minimal level. My take is these various diets work, at least for a while, because if you reduce a major food group you are inevitably going to reduce calories. For me, I log everything I eat in an app and try to stay within calorie goals, and at the same time avoid too much “junk”. Over almost a year I’ve lost 35 pounds and lowered cholesterol. But it is something I’ll have to do every day going forward because as soon as I stop I’ll fall off the wagon.

I recognize that some who are diabetic may need to take more care to avoid carbs and sugars.

 

[Koolau]

I’ve been around long enough to see diets where each of fats, carbs and protein were considered good or bad, beyond a minimal level. My take is these various diets work, at least for a while, because if you reduce a major food group you are inevitably going to reduce calories. For me, I log everything I eat in an app and try to stay within calorie goals, and at the same time avoid too much “junk”. Over almost a year I’ve lost 35 pounds and lowered cholesterol. But it is something I’ll have to do every day going forward because as soon as I stop I’ll fall off the wagon.

I recognize that some who are diabetic may need to take more care to avoid carbs and sugars.

I agree that the specific diets have one thing in common: They all eventually w*rk by lowering the amount of calories you consume. I'm not selling Adkins, but what I found on it was that "cravings" for food - even the old "deadly cravings" such as chips or chocolate go away after two days.

On Adkins, I could eat or not and feel very little hunger or craving. I've heard it said that the extra fat you consume causes you to feel nauseated which lowers your appetite. That was never true for me. Oddly, with all that animal fat, MY cholesterol went down when on Adkins diet for a relatively long period (one example only.)

 

[Life]

EPA-DHA may help!

Hi,
I am a lacto vegetarian (no eggs), and I have same high lipid profile issue too.
Try adding EPA DHA to your supplements list and see if it helps. In my opinion, it should help your situation.

 

[Chuckanut]

If I cut back on carbohydrates, it leaves very little for me to eat, and I do not need to lose weight! I totally agree with eating very little sugary or processed carbohydrates, but if I have to give up cereals, breads, beans, and fruits, I'm gonna look like a skeleton, and snap like a twig.



I dislike fatty food, always have since childhood. I know everybody else here seems to adore bacon, cheese, etc. but they are just not for me in any quantity.

Check out the book Always Hungry by Ludwig.

Unlike the ultra low carb world, the doctor allows ample amounts of unprocessed and lightly processed carbs. Sugar including very sugary fruits are still a No No. IOW, it’s more sustainable for people like me. YMMV.

I do mean check it out. As in get it from the library and see if it fits your needs before shelling out the dollars.

 

[Pluperfect]

I was told that I have a 10% chance of a heart attack in the next 10 years, and based on what I've read, a statin would reduce it to around 7%. Is that really significant?

It's a 33% decrease.

Look at your triglyceride/HDL ratio.......that is the important marker. If you are near 1.0, or below 1.0, you have no worries. If you are between 1.0 and 2.0, you are still okay, but may need to make a few changes to get it a little lower. ... https://philmaffetone.com/tg-hdl-ratio-the-blood-fat-number-to-know/

Let's use two of my tests, which were two weeks apart.

The first one had total cholesterol of 189 and LDL of 75, which are both fine (under 200 and under 100 respectively) if you're just asking, "Do I have high cholesterol?" But my HDL of 80 and triglycerides of 171 result in a ratio of 2.1, which is too high according to this site.

But my second test, two weeks later with no changes in lifestyle, is the opposite. I had total cholesterol of 227 and LDL of 125, which qualifies as "high cholesterol" But an HDL of 81 and Triglycerides of 104 make for a ratio of 1.3, which is okay according to this site.

So which is it? Who knows. I'm just glad I got these tests after I got the first one that said my triglycerides were 444, which I'm convinced is an error--action taken based on that 444 would not have been warranted. Although if action had been taken, these subsequent tests would show great progress--from 444 to 171 to 104. But of course these reductions happened with no changes at all.

Or maybe the 444 IS right and the two subsequent tests are wrong.

While it may not be healthy, it's working for him. It's all about volume control.

That's what works for me.

Other than BMI, waist circumference, and body fat percentage, which are wonderful, my numbers aren't ideal, but I don't think they're bad at all if you take into account my diet and activity. I enjoy a lot of processed foods and sugar, and the only exercise I do is what I actually want to do--you'll never catch me walking just for the sake of getting steps in.

My body usually likes being fed once a day, in the middle of the day. I'm almost never hungry in the morning, and if I'm not, I wait until lunch to eat, and often that doesn't happen until mid-afternoon. I eat as much as I want, and if I'm hungry later I eat some more, but that doesn't always happen. This flies in the face of all advice but it works for me. I'm just glad I thought outside the box enough to realize it.

As for test results, assuming I can reconcile them, I consider them an acceptable tradeoff for not depriving myself of any food I like, or not making myself go to a spin class. It's not like they're stratospheric, or accompanied by any other symptoms. Like my every-twelve-years teeth cleaning, it's what I've figured out works for me.



And add to that using q-tips deep in my ear canals. I confessed to my long-time audiologist I do it and she said, "Well, I trust you to do it."

 

[Koolau]

It's a 33% decrease.


Let's use two of my tests, which were two weeks apart.

The first one had total cholesterol of 189 and LDL of 75, which are both fine (under 200 and under 100 respectively) if you're just asking, "Do I have high cholesterol?" But my HDL of 80 and triglycerides of 171 result in a ratio of 2.1, which is too high according to this site.

But my second test, two weeks later with no changes in lifestyle, is the opposite. I had total cholesterol of 227 and LDL of 125, which qualifies as "high cholesterol" But an HDL of 81 and Triglycerides of 104 make for a ratio of 1.3, which is okay according to this site.

So which is it? Who knows. I'm just glad I got these tests after I got the first one that said my triglycerides were 444, which I'm convinced is an error--action taken based on that 444 would not have been warranted. Although if action had been taken, these subsequent tests would show great progress--from 444 to 171 to 104. But of course these reductions happened with no changes at all.

Or maybe the 444 IS right and the two subsequent tests are wrong.

That's what works for me.

Other than BMI, waist circumference, and body fat percentage, which are wonderful, my numbers aren't ideal, but I don't think they're bad at all if you take into account my diet and activity. I enjoy a lot of processed foods and sugar, and the only exercise I do is what I actually want to do--you'll never catch me walking just for the sake of getting steps in.

My body usually likes being fed once a day, in the middle of the day. I'm almost never hungry in the morning, and if I'm not, I wait until lunch to eat, and often that doesn't happen until mid-afternoon. I eat as much as I want, and if I'm hungry later I eat some more, but that doesn't always happen. This flies in the face of all advice but it works for me. I'm just glad I thought outside the box enough to realize it.

As for test results, assuming I can reconcile them, I consider them an acceptable tradeoff for not depriving myself of any food I like, or not making myself go to a spin class. It's not like they're stratospheric, or accompanied by any other symptoms. Like my every-twelve-years teeth cleaning, it's what I've figured out works for me.



And add to that using q-tips deep in my ear canals. I confessed to my long-time audiologist I do it and she said, "Well, I trust you to do it."

I think it's important to remember what your test results show. EACH of these various tests have error bars associated with them. Maybe for cholesterol, you end up with a number of 150. The error due to the test may well mean that 95% of the time, the "real" number will fall between 130 and 170 (hope it's not that bad.) Now you take the trygl. number and maybe it's 100 (but because of error, it could be 80 to 120. Now you divide those numbers and the errors really blow up.

I had this happen at megacorp. One of my nemesis (AKA internal customer) used to take two numbers that my lab provide him. He would divide them and show that (in his opinion) something was wrong, because that divided number should be XYZ. I finally called in a statistician. She showed that the guy's divided number couldn't possibly have any value due to the multiplication of error.

I don't know about the Cholesterol/Triglycerides ratio is compromised by errors, but it might be.

 

[JBTX]

A lot of posts here extolling the wonders of high HDL ( and the resulting low ratios). The most recent evidence shows it’s a mixed bag

https://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-m...igh HDL levels could,a heart attack or stroke.


https://peterattiamd.com/danrader/

 

[orbops]

I'm 56, and 2 weeks ago ended up going to the ER with slight pressure on my chest, tingly feeling arms, and feeling winded. I ended up having quad bypass surgery and am slowly recovering. They say I should have another 20-25 years with the bypass before needing stents.

I have had higher cholesterol levels for almost 20 years (200-250 total), higher LDL (130-150), and higher triglycerides -- and had cut out eating meat for lunch or dinner, unless I ate out. It turns out that my father and my uncle had both died from heart problems (in their mid 80s), and some distant relatives also had heart problems. The doctors told me that since it was hereditary, no meds or exercise would have made a difference in the long run. Since your family has a history of heart problems get stress tested.