My recent heart scan results were 50% lower (= better) than predicted. Apparently I am doing something right.
You might think that my lipid values would reflect that. Not quite. They were measured twice in the last two weeks, first with a Cholestech LDX machine (instant results); second, ordinary lab tests.
Here are the scores (first test, second test). Total Cholesterol: 210, 214, which is “borderline high” (borderline bad) according to the Cholestech LDX quick reference sheet. HDL = 17, 36, which is “low” (bad). TRG = 62, 75, which is “normal”. LDL = 180, 163, which is “high” (bad).
There is no hint in these numbers that I am doing the right thing! If anything, they imply the opposite, that I’m doing the wrong thing. This supports all those people, such as Uffe Ravnskov, who say the connection between cholesterol and heart disease is badly overstated.
Your results are interesting because while animal fat will raise LDL it will (typically) raise HDL to protective levels. Ever think about getting your Omega-3s from fish oil as opposed to flaxseed or maybe try a combination of both to see if that might have the effect of raising your HDL?
Yes, and you didn’t get the LDL sub particle type measured. You’ll probably find that the majority of LDL particles are the larger ones (the “good” “bad” cholesterol – ha!) And the formula used for calculating LDL doesn’t work well when TRG is that low. How’s it look with the Iranian forumla?
https://homepages.slingshot.co.nz/~geoff36/LDL_mg.htm
wow, your HDL is incredibly low for someone on a high animal fat diet. There are some people with low HDL though that are particularly protected from coronary disease:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ApoA-1_Milano
A question also is did your lipids change appreciable in the time since your last heart scan?
Might there be a problem due to the unnaturally high omega-3 consumption, because it is an easily oxidized fat?
You might want to get a test to determine the makeup of the LDL. You’ll find out if it is the large, fluffy kind (good), or the small, dense kind (bad).
I would guess that with your diet, you would have a higher percentage of the large fluffy LDL. And that would be fine. The number itself, without knowing the different fractions, is meaningless if not misleading.
My lipids didn’t change appreciably from what would have been predicted from previous years, except that the low HDL (18) is an aberration.