High LDL cholesterol

(Joey) #21

I’m afraid you’re confusing blood serum levels of BHB with whether or not you are in ketosis. A common misunderstanding, but not particularly helpful for evaluating what’s going on inside.

(Michael) #22

Without going too crazy, here are a few points which I am sure some will agree with and some will not.

  1. A good trig/hdl ratio is far more predictive than LDL-C. In fact, LDL-C is almost worthless, what you should measure is LDL-P to decide if you have any worry about your cholesterol conained within your LDL particles. A low LDL-P (particle count) is good, a high particle count is bad, and you LDL-C could be high or low with both cases, so you need to measure to make that determination (or instead use your very good looking trig/hdl ratio instead) or alternatively measure your ApoB as a marker of LDL-P.
  2. nutritional Ketosis was RANDOMLY given a number of 0.5 as being in ketosis without a real good reason to pick that number. Many people think anything above 0.1 should be called ketosis. The longer you are ketogenic, the more likely you will very efficiently use you ketone’s and therefore might be in ketosis and run at a low reading of BHB.
  3. Yes, protein can kick you out of nutritional ketosis. However, you only would kick you out for a short period while you digest and then you would get back into ketosis shortly afterwards. This is ONLY a concern for people who may get epileptic seizures if not in continuous ketosis. Unless you are prone to seizures, a concern about temporarily falling out of ketosis is neither here nor there (why would you care?).
  4. just to compare, here are my pre-keto and post keto numbers (pre keto trig - 3.4, hdl - 0.7, ldl - 3.2) and after one year (post keto trig 1, hdl 1.7, ldl 7.8). My numbers are similar to yours, and like you, I need an LDL-P test to find out if I should have any concerns.

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #23

Quite right about that. Given what you said in that post, I’d stop worrying about cholesterol. You’re doing fine, from the sound of things.

P.S.—We may sound like anti-science crazies, but we’re not. There are sound scientific reasons for doubting the dogma that saturated fat and cholesterol levels cause cardiovascular disease. Going into all those reasons makes for a rather long-winded post, but I can, if you want me to. Unfortunately, cholesterol-lowering medications are too lucrative for anyone to be willing to say that cholesterol doesn’t matter. (And if it does matter, it’s only as a marker for cardiovascular disease, not as a cause.)


Any chance they did the VLDL? I bet that is low…like 15 range


Your Doc is clueless my man, aside from running a standard lipid panel which isn’t only outdated, it’s no longer the standard. Your cholesterol is low, and your LDL at 89 is still within lab range. Depending on your HDL, which is probably low and possibly something to work on.

If your doc won’t run an NMR on you, if you even care, do it yourself if you want to see real numbers that matter. But even your standard panel numbers are fine.

(Alec) #26

No, I am better than that. I am someone who has actually done considerable research on the diet heart hypothesis, the actual scientific research that proves that high cholesterol causes heart disease (there isn’t any), and what cholesterol levels in the body really mean. Show me a Dr who has done that, and I can guarantee they will have similar views to mine. For example, go look at what Dr Ken Berry has to say on the subject. He has done the research, and has come to similar conclusions to mine.

If you want to follow discredited theories that are only still there to enrich the drug companies, be my guest. You will be unhealthier for it,


I wouldn’t put any money on that one, GNG is severely overhyped. Your body is using it, it doens’t just turn to cake and kick you out of ketosis.

Agreed, nobody should be that low. I’m around 250-275g most days. When I used to check ketones, I’d show ketones most of the time.