My lipid profile

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

JJ - 29 Feb 2004 14:56 GMT

I was rummaging through a pile of papers and found my lipid
profile as tested shortly before I started low-carbing it,
when I was still hovering around my heaviest weight.

206 Total cholesterol (goal < 200)
44 HDL "good" cholesterol (goal > 40)
135 LDL "bad" cholesterol (goal < 130, high risk > 159,
cardiac or diabetes pt. goal < 100)
131 Triglycerides (goal < 150)

The comments after the numbers, and the goals, are straight
off the report.

I had almost forgotten I had this documented. These numbers
aren't too bad, at least to my eye, and given that I was
extremely heavy at the time (the doctor was being kind when
he said I was overweight.) 206 total cholesterol is the
highest number I have ever had when tested, and this was
well before I started doing Atkins. I will be going in for
another physical in a few weeks so it will be interesting to
see what the report looks like then.

In the meantime, I continue to be happy with my overall
progress.

Signature

JJ.
275/193/183, BMI 27.7 - as of Feb 21, 2004
Atkins since Sep 1, 2003
http://f2.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/jjsmythe/my_photos
70.2% of the man I used to be.

Reply to this Message

Jean M. - 29 Feb 2004 15:44 GMT

>I was rummaging through a pile of papers and found my lipid
>profile as tested shortly before I started low-carbing it,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>cardiac or diabetes pt. goal < 100)
>131 Triglycerides (goal < 150)

Just so ya know, they have now decided that LDL should be <100. Just
when you think you've almost got it made... :)

It's good that you have those to compare. Let us know what your new
ones are.

Reply to this Message

Susan - 29 Feb 2004 16:33 GMT

>Just so ya know, they have now decided that LDL should be <100. Just
>when you think you've almost got it made... :)

Yabbut, that's due to pharmaceutical company lobbying, no doubt. It's an
artificial number, that takes no account of the particle size nor ratios that
are cardioprotective. Almost no one gets there without taking a statin.

A triumph of marketing over health care.

Susan

Reply to this Message

Supergoof - 01 Mar 2004 03:20 GMT

> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Yabbut, that's due to pharmaceutical company lobbying, no doubt. It's an
> artificial number, that takes no account of [snip]

Not unlike the BMI numbers, in other words ...

:oP

Rachel
(New Zealand)

Reply to this Message

marengo - 01 Mar 2004 06:40 GMT

| Just so ya know, they have now decided that LDL should be <100. Just
| when you think you've almost got it made... :)
|
| It's good that you have those to compare. Let us know what your new
| ones are.

This makes no sense to me. The latest studies show that overall cholesterol
that is too low is as much of a danger to the cardiovascular sustem as
cholesterol that is too high. So this <100 LDL doesn't jive. Who are the
"they" whom you say have decided this>? Sounds like the makers of Lipitor
et. al., maybe?

Signature

Peter
website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo

Reply to this Message