High LDL cholesterol on carnivore?

#1

So my mom just send me an e-mail stating how concerned she is about my carnivore WOE. Stating high cholesterol runs in my family, that my grandmother took meds for this, I never heard this before, and my mom has heart problems she tells me now and her cholesterol is 5. She wants me to measure mine. I did write her back telling her new research has shown LDL cholesterol to have less impact on the heart, but is this true? Please share your input, experiences and any grasp on science regarding this you might have. My mom basically is telling me to quit carnivore and eat a lot more plants. I had to then point out just how much sugary stuff sheā€™s happy to indulge in, and the fact she still does after she was borderline diabetic.

#2

chol. is wild out there. tons of myths on useless science against real truths and more.

key being, mostly, for most that is on carnivore it can easily take UP to a year eating this plan for your ā€˜oneā€™s own individual bodyā€™ to show real changes in ā€˜current medical testingā€™ numbers soā€¦that is a biggie. It ainā€™t all fast cut and dry on this one.

then ya got particle size. small are badder than the big clumpsā€¦IF I REMEMBER right here LOL cause the Dr. told me many many moons ago on testing I had the BAD size particles. Put on statin, said heck no, and fine in the last 20 yrs not on that med but key beingā€¦there are a ton of factors to consider also on chol. Think real deal diagnosed med history for the person in question and what it done to a body to date, what are ā€˜real chol. numbersā€™ against studies showing ā€˜fat intakeā€™ always as the culprit, donā€™t know, ainā€™t none LOL and when one reads up on chol. it is a shi**storm of crazy truly on how to walk thru real studies and those that are just not applicable to our ā€˜carnivore menuā€™ at all.

so hit the carnivore trail and donā€™t look back. then in, only at about 6 mos. earliest would I do chol. check and then I would take it again at like year 1.6ā€¦yupā€¦it wonā€™t change fast or furious to some great numbers for many out there. So that is my take on it.

if oneā€™s focus is only chol. and the info out there one wonā€™t ever see the trees thru that forest ya know. soā€¦ok just some chat on it all.

pre-diabetic, yea get off the sugar and big GI veg/fruit and get onto the protein and fats from animals. THAT would be my focus before worrying about extras :slight_smile: :slight_smile: Something is screaming right at a person, tackle that and fix more then ā€˜putting that wonderā€™ on something that is more fluffy out there with chol. and worrying whether it is gonna take ya out tomorrow or not? The sugar issue can ramp to diabetes real fast where the chol. level is a focus and isnā€™t letting the real issue be seen in a way. But darn if it donā€™t all come down on us sometimes all at once and we get confused and more on a specific issue and again, donā€™t see the trees in the big forest picture. OK again just chat :slight_smile:

#3

Hi Fangs, Iā€™m not so worried actually about the LDL cholesterol, having read a good bit about it and it seems thereā€™s a common misconception that it leads to heart problems, when newer research shows the LDL not to have much impact on that at all. But I was hoping for some argument, of more substantial value, that I could point out to my mom to alleviate her concerns, as itā€™s no good if sheā€™s stressed. I feel fine, and enjoying my food. I do my daily walks, and life is good. But you know how family can be. I love my mom to bits but we are not going to agree on this one. But I donā€™t want her to be too concerned either.

Yes, Iā€™ve read one should wait till the 6 month mark regarding testing cholesterol as it can be high at the start of carnivore and then later normalise, if I remember that correctly.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #4

The question of cholesterol and cardiovascular disease is a vexed one. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it cannot be the cause of cardiovascular disease, but that notion dies hard. My own take on what Iā€™ve read is that cholesterol is affected by whatever the actual, true cause of cardiovascular disease happens to be, so we can use it as a marker, but manipulating cholesterol directly is not generally helpful in reducing cardiovascular disease itself. I am inclined to believe that both elevated LDL and our cardiovascular risk are the result of metabolic dysfunction.

The connexion between obesity and diabetes is a similar situation. It used to be believed that getting fat caused us to become diabetic. Now we know that both conditions are caused by metabolic dysfunction, so that obesity is a marker of diabetes risk, not the cause of diabetes. And the solution is not to lose weight per se, but to address the underlying metabolic dysfunction, which will improve both conditions. If I am right that metabolic dysfunction is at the root of cardiovascular disease, then anything that addresses metabolic dysfunction will reduce our cardiovascular risk and our cholesterol, along with our obesity and our diabetes.

That said, there are some people whose LDL rises surprisingly on a low-carb/ketogenic or carnivore diet. There is a specific profile for such people, whom Dave Feldman calls ā€œlean-mass hyper-responders.ā€ Daveā€™s contention is that no one has been able to show that the LDL level in their case brings any cardiovascular risk with it, and he is currently in the middle of an experiment to see whether that contention is true.

This contention may well be correct, since studies of people with familial hypercholesterolaemia show that their LDL levels per se are not a risk for cardiovascular disease; the risk comes from other genetic factors that tend to associate with the gene for FH. About 50% of people with FH lack these factors, and they tend to live perfectly normal lives and die at perfectly normal ages of causes other than cardiovascular disease. In fact, their elevated LDL appears to prolong their lives, once they reach a certain age. The people with FH who do develop cardiovascular disease all have genetic variations in their fibrinogen and clotting factor VIII (sometimes other factors, as well) that make their blood much likelier to clot, which has led some researchers to propose that it may well be hypercoagulability of the blood that is the true risk for cardiovascular disease.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #5

Try this: what is your ratio of triglycerides to HDL? If it is 0.9 or lower (2.0 or lower in the U.S.), then this is a strong indicator of minimal cardiovascular risk. Even people who still believe that cholesterol causes cardiovascular disease have to admit that.

Further proof would come from an NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) analysis of your LDL particle sizes. If your ratio of triglycerides to HDL is low, thatā€™s practically a guarantee that your LDL particle distribution will be in the healthy Pattern A.

Additional tests of your cardiovascular condition would be a CAC (coronary arterial calcium) scan and a CIMT (coronary intima media thickness) scan, which directly measure the condition of your arteries. There is a strong resistance to prescribing these tests, however, and you might have to pay for them yourself, assuming that your jurisdiction legally allows labs to perform such tests on your own say-so.

#6

so agreed
like Paul said ā€˜very vexedā€™ for sure and why I said big confusion on it all. We all wish there was a cut and dry but on this point there just isn not.

(Joey) #7

Iā€™ll beg to differ.

Actually, along with the incredibly large number of people who have personally benefited from carnivore and other related HFLC (carb-restricted) eating, itā€™s pretty cut & dried if only one cares to embrace science.

Here are a few suggested readings for @never2lateā€™s concerned and loving family. These are just a small sample from highly regarded, peer-reviewed professional scientific journals:

(Google this study for entire file - was too large to attach):
MinnesotaCoronaryExperiment-FIRSTPAGE.pdf (332.8 KB)

Lack-InverseAssoc-LDL-Mortality-2015.pdf (881.6 KB)

FatsCarbsAtherosclWomen.pdf (190.3 KB)

SatFat-Carb-CVD.pdf (162.1 KB)

LowerLipidEffectonCardioRisk.pdf (441.2 KB)

Statins-LowCarb-Aug22.pdf (552.9 KB)

:vulcan_salute:

#8

Hi Joey, thanks, Iā€™ll have a read of them and send on the links to my mom, and hopefully that will alleviate her concerns. Thanks again.

(Joey) #9

You bet! The highlighted passages reflect my own emphasis as I found it helped friends/family/physician devote a little time to get the ā€œbig takeawayā€ ā€¦ without expecting them to invest (hours) to fully digest an entire scientific paper. Hopefully that helps a bit.

#10

Hi Joey, Iā€™ve now read through the studies, the last one is probably the one that has the greatest chance at convincing my mom. She does have a risk of CVD. She told me there has been found calcification within the coronary arteries and from what I understand CAC (coronary artery calcium) is a reliable measure of CVD risk, as opposed to CDL-C. My mom has always seen saturated fat as the villain, but sheā€™s never even considered her high carbohydrate and sugar intake. So these articles and particularly the last one, are most helpful.

(Joey) #11

So glad to hear it might give you some traction with your Mom. On the topic of CAC scores (a bit off original thread topic), Iā€™ll add a few more papers that might be of interest from highly reliable sources.

This stuff is a bit more esoteric, but has been extremely helpful when my wife and I have discussed our own Agatston CAC scores (taken over a period of years) with our wonderful internistā€¦

CalcDensityPlaque-Criqui-2014.pdf (323.7 KB)
CalcDensityPlaque-Criqui-2017.pdf (508.4 KB)
CalcDensityPlaque-Criqui-2021.pdf (110.7 KB)

Bottom line: While a higher CAC score is undesirable all else equal, and it is only the calcification that appears on a CAC score, not the more dangerous soft plaque that can ā€œcome looseā€ - the calcification is believed by a growing number of researchers to represent a form of healing (i.e., scabbing).

The higher the density of this scabbing, the MORE protective against CVD, and risk is actually reduced - for any given CAC score #.

FYI, ā€œdensityā€ is not typically shown on CAC reports. But from physics class, recall that DENSITY = MASS divided by VOLUME. And those other two metrics are typically provided. Thus, a series of CAC scan reports over time will reveal whether density, as derived, is increasing.

More to the story, but hopefully these studies are of interest to you (and your Mom).

#12

Hi Joey, once again, thanks for very useful links. Read the first study, very interesting. Will share it with my mom, as Iā€™m sure more tests could be carried out to ascertain the density of the calcification.

(Joey) #13

Again, itā€™s a bit complicated to explain, but in short, hereā€™s my understanding:

Each CAC scan gathers data on volume and mass, through which an Agatston score is derived. Additional tests will simply give snapshots at additional points in time.

Some CAC result reports provide the mass and volume info. Regardless, it was captured and should be available upon request in any case. Our info was included on a hardcopy (but not on an electronic summary provided also).

ā€œDensityā€ is derived by dividing mass by volume. That figure (which you may want to x1000 for ease of reading the units) is what appears to be worth tracking over time (i.e., over several years worth of CAC scans).

No one would like to have calcification. But if you do (evidence of soft plaque damage from prior years), then density = good. Itā€™s the healing.

What I believe - based on lots of reading on related topics - is that restricting carbs minimizes ongoing/further inflammation, which causes soft plaque in arteries. Then the healing (calcification) can begin.

In my own case, the volume of calcification has been reduced while the density of these smaller ā€œscabsā€ has increased. I attribute this healthier outlook to (1) HF/LC eating, and (2) Vitamin K2 and D3, which help put calcium into bones/teeth where it otherwise belongs, which then minimizes excessive levels of calcium beyond whatā€™s needed for epithelial healing in the arteries (and likely elsewhere).

Yeah, a number of moving parts are involved in grasping all this. Happy to share more research papers Iā€™ve come across.

None of these notions are my ideas. Itā€™s what Iā€™ve learned by reading the research of those devoting their scientific careers to figuring out whatā€™s going on inside us. :+1:

(Bob M) #14

Iā€™d say thatā€™s true, given that many with FH (familial hypercholesterolemia, very high LDL) have zero scores on CAC scans. (To me, this means that LDL does not cause atherosclerosis, but it seems like one canā€™t kill that idea.)

(Joey) #15

Well put. We canā€™t kill the idea. Yet the idea seems capable of killing us. :roll_eyes:

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #16

Soft plaque is what a CIMT scan is for.

And remember: the absolute CAC score is not so much an issue as the trend. If a score is high but coming down, thatā€™s a good sign. It means that no new plaques are being formed that require being stabilsed with calcium, and the plaques that have already been calcified are slowly resolving. Of course, itā€™s better never to have enough damage to require calcification in the first place, but we canā€™t all be so lucky. Especially if we make the mistake of following the governmentā€™s dietary recommendations.

P.S.ā€“I donā€™t see any point in worrying about getting the calcium out of the plaque just for the sake of manipulating a marker. Itā€™s there for a purpose, and I say let it stay there till itā€™s not needed.

(Alec) #17

Paul
Where did you get these target numbers? I am very confused about why they would be different between the US ratio and the non-US ratioā€¦ because they are both ratios. If they are, then surely as long as the unit of measure of both the numerator and denominator are the same (and I think they are in each case) then surely the target ratio should be the same?

[And stop calling me Shirley]
Cheers
A

(Megan) #18

Careful @Alecmcq, you may earn yourself a forum nickname!

I had labs done 4 months into carni @never2late. My triglycerides dropped considerably and are now in the normal range ( Triglyceride: 0.9 mmol/L ( < 2.0 ), and my HDL cholesterol rose and is now in the normal range for the 1st time. My LDL dropped and is now just outside of the normal range, ditto my cholesterol (which Iā€™m guessing is total cholesterol).

#19

Hi Megan, thanks for your reply, good to read your cholesterol levels normalised for you. My mom wants me to check mine, but I wonā€™t do that at the moment, I might wait until the 6 month mark from when I fully transitioned to carnivore. As I understand for some it might take about that length of time or even longer for the body to adjust the levels.

(Denise) #20

I personally feel that losing weight didnā€™t cause my blood glucose (A1cā€™s as I am a T2 Diabetic) to come down to a safe level, but the lack of carbs are what did the trick. I believe the loss of unwanted fat was a bonus so I am beginning to understand what you mean by ā€œmarkerā€.

@never2late, cholesterol has been between 300 and 400 the whole 2 plus years Iā€™ve been on keto, but tests show I have no clogged arteries, no build up of plaque. I have a heart-condition called a 3rd Degree AV Node block and told me I needed a pacemaker and I went ahead with that. Iā€™m on my 3rd one now since 1997. But I will not take their statins for the higher cholesterol because I believe cholesterol is not harming me.

I guess one day I might know if Iā€™ve chosen right or not but for now, Iā€™m a very active 70 year old, feel good, lots of energy, workouts at the gym, and lots of walking because I love the outdoors.