Diet tips for high blood pressure and cholesterol...

[chiang mai]

Just got my results back, HDL = 76, LDL = 74, total cholesterol = 140, diet and fiber is the key.

Something wrong here.

How can your total cholesterol be 140, when your LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol added together make 150, and this doesn't include the cholesterol carried in your VLDL (triglyceride lipoprotein) which even in fasting individuals carries at least 10% of plasma cholesterol? Total cholesterol can't be less than your LDL and HDL cholesterol added together!

Admittedly an approximate calculation (based on directly measuring HDL cholesterol and plasma triglyceride, and applying the Friedwald equation) is often used to work out plasma LDL, rather than a direct measurement, and this does often slightly underestimate LDL.

It is still not possible for these results to be correct though.

An LDL of 74 is totally amazing- like a hunter gatherer in the rain forest so this would be the result I would suspect, but if true, congratulations!

Here's my LDL readings since June 2010, there's nothing unusual about 74 since the range is <80 and I do have a stent hence my target is 75:

78, 89, 83, 40, 70 51, 78, 59, 76, 80, 68, 89, 89, 63, 74.

I'll be happy to PM you the test results if you wish.

EDIT: correction, total cholesterol was 160 and not 140, (160 was something else entirely) and well spotted.

Edited February 11, 2014 by chiang mai

[partington]

Just got my results back, HDL = 76, LDL = 74, total cholesterol = 140, diet and fiber is the key.

Something wrong here.

How can your total cholesterol be 140, when your LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol added together make 150, and this doesn't include the cholesterol carried in your VLDL (triglyceride lipoprotein) which even in fasting individuals carries at least 10% of plasma cholesterol? Total cholesterol can't be less than your LDL and HDL cholesterol added together!

Admittedly an approximate calculation (based on directly measuring HDL cholesterol and plasma triglyceride, and applying the Friedwald equation) is often used to work out plasma LDL, rather than a direct measurement, and this does often slightly underestimate LDL.

It is still not possible for these results to be correct though.

An LDL of 74 is totally amazing- like a hunter gatherer in the rain forest so this would be the result I would suspect, but if true, congratulations!

Here's my LDL readings since June 2010, there's nothing unusual about 74 since the range is <80 and I do have a stent hence my target is 75:

78, 89, 83, 40, 70 51, 78, 59, 76, 80, 68, 89, 89, 63, 74.

I'll be happy to PM you the test results if you wish.

No , no, no need for that I just idly read the figures and was puzzled by this.

I mean you do see my point about the numbers not adding up, right? Your total cholesterol is given as less than LDL and HDL added together, and total cholesterol also must include an additional figure for cholesterol in VLDL. So as given they can't be correct.

Is the LDL in mg/dl? The only thing I can think of about the low LDL values is I'm confusing some units somewhere. 40 mg/dl LDL, as one of your tests gave, is simply extraordinary!!

[chiang mai]

No , no, no need for that I just idly read the figures and was puzzled by this.

Just got my results back, HDL = 76, LDL = 74, total cholesterol = 140, diet and fiber is the key.

Something wrong here.

How can your total cholesterol be 140, when your LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol added together make 150, and this doesn't include the cholesterol carried in your VLDL (triglyceride lipoprotein) which even in fasting individuals carries at least 10% of plasma cholesterol? Total cholesterol can't be less than your LDL and HDL cholesterol added together!

Admittedly an approximate calculation (based on directly measuring HDL cholesterol and plasma triglyceride, and applying the Friedwald equation) is often used to work out plasma LDL, rather than a direct measurement, and this does often slightly underestimate LDL.

It is still not possible for these results to be correct though.

An LDL of 74 is totally amazing- like a hunter gatherer in the rain forest so this would be the result I would suspect, but if true, congratulations!

Here's my LDL readings since June 2010, there's nothing unusual about 74 since the range is <80 and I do have a stent hence my target is 75:

78, 89, 83, 40, 70 51, 78, 59, 76, 80, 68, 89, 89, 63, 74.

I'll be happy to PM you the test results if you wish.

I mean you do see my point about the numbers not adding up, right? Your total cholesterol is given as less than LDL and HDL added together, and total cholesterol also must include an additional figure for cholesterol in VLDL. So as given they can't be correct.

Is the LDL in mg/dl? The only thing I can think of about the low LDL values is I'm confusing some units somewhere. 40 mg/dl LDL, as one of your tests gave, is simply extraordinary!!

Yes the numbers are mg/dl and I'm not offended by your questioning, if it helps at all, the numbers by the direct method have always been broadly similar although I can't describe to you which is which without some research

But I am taken aback by your comments that my numbers are slightly unique since the range is <80, I always thought my numbers were normal. Again, if it helps you I will happily PM you the scanned data.

[partington]

Well I was doubting myself , but I've just had a look at a paper where they measured 600 or so random Thais in the South for presence of cardiovascular risk factors and 61% had LDL cholesterol of 130mg/dl or above.

So your figure of <80 (not a range that would be two figures) is low. Is that a target goal rather than a range?

I have I'm afraid done what I hate other people doing and not read the whole thread before contributing, but as you say you have a stent, are you on industrial quantities of statins?

This would go some way towards explaining it , but still that level of LDL( edit-referring to the 40mg/dl reading here) is at least 3 standard deviations lower than the mean for most western populations!

Edited February 11, 2014 by partington

[chiang mai]

Well I was doubting myself , but I've just had a look at a paper where they measured 600 or so random Thais in the South for presence of cardiovascular risk factors and 61% had LDL cholesterol of 130mg/dl or above.

So your figure of <80 (not a range that would be two figures) is low. Is that a target goal rather than a range?

I have I'm afraid done what I hate other people doing and not read the whole thread before contributing, but as you say you have a stent, are you on industrial quantities of statins?

This would go some way towards explaining it , but still that level of LDL is at least 3 standard deviations lower than the mean for most western populations!

I take 5mg of Crestor per day, that's below the entry level for the product of 10mg, my dosage originally was set at 20mg but I quickly figured out that it was causing ALT leakage and whilst my cardio. was happy for me to continue that way, I wasn't, hence the 5 mg aspect, that was four years ago. As long as my LDL remains sub 80 I'm happy and my diet ensures it does that. The only other meds I take are precautionary Aspent.

As for the LDL range: the Mayo cites the following although most other heart organizations have very slightly different numbers, they are all broadly the same however:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/cholesterol-levels/art-20048245

[partington]

OK , thanks I get it now. You are in a very high risk group and are aiming to get your cholesterol down below 80 by diet and statins, and being amazingly successful. Seriously this is a very good achievement as some people struggle to even get below 100!

I still think there is an error somewhere in the cholesterol readings as given, but probably don't need to worry too much about it if your LDLs are consistently below 80, and your HDLs remain so high.

Congratulations again!

[chiang mai]

Try using this to see what your risk levels are, open the link and click on Q-Risk in the left panel and take the test:

http://www.qresearch.org/SitePages/qriskInformationforPatients.aspx

[Showbags]

4.3%...I'll take those odss

[chiang mai]

You cheated you dirt bag.

[Showbags]

All relevant and known info went in as true and correct.....but had to leave the Cholesterol average question blank if that makes any diff.

By the way...I did not know you were on medication....if mentioned anywhere above I must have missed it...so whom is the cheater now !!!!!!

[chiang mai]

All relevant and known info went in as true and correct.....but had to leave the Cholesterol average question blank if that makes any diff.

By the way...I did not know you were on medication....if mentioned anywhere above I must have missed it...so whom is the cheater now !!!!!!

I take 5 mg Crestor to keep my cardio happy, that's because I have a stent in my Right Carotid Artery as mentioned in post number 3 of this thread, the numbers I achieve however are strictly down to diet and lifestyle, trust me, I've tried stopping Crestor and at 5 mg there's barely any difference in the numbers, Crestor doesn't really start to show results below its entry level dosage (ditto all drugs).

Sooooo, how's about you take the test again and this time plug in your real HDL numbers, that's total cholesterol divided by the HDL number and get back to us with the real number!

BTW the only person who is being cheated if these numbers are falsified is the originator, they're cheating themselves.

FWIW I came in at 8.8% and if I factor in a well managed Type II, it increases to 15%, that's why I think your 4.3% is hot air, unless you're only nineteen years old that is!

Edited February 12, 2014 by chiang mai

[Showbags]

ok...I'll try again....but i presume some things such as age and never smoked...and not having a relative (known) under 60 have heart attack etc...old man died at 68 though from one.

[Showbags]

You're right.

This time it was higher.

4.5%

Soooooo...unless I am doing something wrong, how about you do it with my figures..

50yo, male, white with a tan, non smoker, diabetes none, next 5 questions NONE, Chol/hdl% (196/40=4.9), BP 133, height 180cm, weight 77kg.

Thats it...over 10 years.

[ChrisB87]

BP = lose weight if needed, exercise regularly and minimize sodium intake (no added salt, and avoid processed foods)

Note that even with this, some people -- many in fact, especially among the over 5 crowd -- cannot maintain a healthy BP without medication.

Cholesterol = would help to know exactly what you HDL and LDL levels were 9total cholesterol is not meaningful). Avopid all fried foods at the market/restaurants (they use the worst kind of oil) and use only healthy oils at home (canola, olive, sunflower etc). Take in as much fiber as you can. Keep red meat to a minimum, ditto cheese. Avoid processed carbs but it sounds like you already do. Fish oil supplements.

Good advice!

However, it may not be so clear which oils are healthy to cook with.

Below is a link to an interesting article which suggests that palm oil (one of the cheapest in Thailand) is the 2nd best oil to use for cooking. Olive ranks 3rd. Canola 7th. And sunflower 8th.

http://drbenkim.com/articles-oils.html

"Of all commonly available plant oils, palm oil is second only to coconut oil in its ability to remain stable when exposed to heat."

Edited January 11, 2015 by ChrisB87

[ding]

BP = lose weight if needed, exercise regularly and minimize sodium intake (no added salt, and avoid processed foods)

Note that even with this, some people -- many in fact, especially among the over 5 crowd -- cannot maintain a healthy BP without medication.

Cholesterol = would help to know exactly what you HDL and LDL levels were 9total cholesterol is not meaningful). Avopid all fried foods at the market/restaurants (they use the worst kind of oil) and use only healthy oils at home (canola, olive, sunflower etc). Take in as much fiber as you can. Keep red meat to a minimum, ditto cheese. Avoid processed carbs but it sounds like you already do. Fish oil supplements.

Good advice!

However, it may not be so clear which oils are healthy to cook with.

Below is a link to an interesting article which suggests that palm oil (one of the cheapest in Thailand) is the 2nd best oil to use for cooking. Olive ranks 3rd. Canola 7th. And sunflower 8th.

http://drbenkim.com/articles-oils.html

"Of all commonly available plant oils, palm oil is second only to coconut oil in its ability to remain stable when exposed to heat."

Olive oil breaks down when heated and beneficial nutrients lost. Coconut oil doesn't break down with heat like olive oil.

I pour olive oil over eggs or on oatmeal.

[ding]

You're right.

This time it was higher.

4.5%

Soooooo...unless I am doing something wrong, how about you do it with my figures..

50yo, male, white with a tan, non smoker, diabetes none, next 5 questions NONE, Chol/hdl% (196/40=4.9), BP 133, height 180cm, weight 77kg.

Thats it...over 10 years.

The tan is important. ESPECIALLY if one ends up not being able to avoid statins due to a Familial Hypercholesteremia. Statins kill your Vitamin D and sun on skin produces lots. Walk barefoot in the beach daily too - IMHO.

For BP - diastolic & systolic are both important.

For cholesterol, LDL-C is the best test. Or Apolipoprotein-B .

If you know your HDL and triglyceride you can find you Insulin Resistance cheaply;

Trig/HDL

***Lp(a) + high LDL-C act synergistically to worsen atherosclerosis plaque formation****

Familial Hypercholesteremia (FH) ; Lipo protein (little a), Apo-B, LDL

!!! Determine Lp(a) level < 40-5- mg/dL per National Lipid Association !!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HacgQYNmhYM

[Globalist]

There's only one thing that needs to be excluded: sugar.

Unfortunately it means going off Thai food altogether, since it's a sugar-based cuisine...

[Tolley]

There's only one thing that needs to be excluded: sugar.

Unfortunately it means going off Thai food altogether, since it's a sugar-based cuisine...

That is true unless you cook it yourself.