Cholesterol reduction- Any sucess stories?

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:02:54 GMT, Greg Farrell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have been on South Beach diet for 3 months, primarily to lower my
cholesterol. My total cholestrol was below 200 for over 20 years but
has been going up steadily for about 3 years. It was at 273 when I
started the diet. Has anyone had any luck bring down theirs down with
low carb dieting?

My total cholesterol went up (from about 150 to about 170). However, my
HDL improved to over 40 for the first time ever, and my TC/HDL ratio
improved. Additionally, my triglycerides improved, as did my fasting
blood sugar. However, I'm not doing South Beach; I'm doing low carb
without limiting saturated fat (in terms of restricting it because of its
supposed heart risk; I do restrict it solely because of calories, however).

--
Bob in CT

I had my total cholesterol checked at a pharmacy more than 10 years ago and
it was 5.1 mmol/L. In Canada, 5.2 mmol/L is the upper limit for a "normal"
reading. Since it was below the upper limit, I didn't have it investigated
further but my diet consisted mainly of fast food, so I can only assume it
would have gone up since then.
I had a full cholesterol panel done 3 weeks ago after being LC for 10
months. The total had dropped to 4.0 mmol/L, my triglycerides are BELOW
the recommended range and my LDL/HDL ratio is very low as well. In fact,
my doctor said I had the best results he'd ever seen! I know I don't have
prior results to compare these to, but I find it hard to believe that they
would be this good had I continued my high-carb lifestyle.

on Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:02:54 GMT, Greg Farrell <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I have been on South Beach diet for 3 months, primarily to lower my
cholesterol. My total cholestrol was below 200 for over 20 years but
has been going up steadily for about 3 years. It was at 273 when I
started the diet. Has anyone had any luck bring down theirs down with
low carb dieting?

-----
Bev

I should point out that I don't follow South Beach either and never pay
attention to cholesterol or saturated fats in my diet. My average daily
fat intake is very high (by old-fashioned medical standards) at between 55
and 65% of calories. I use a lot of vegetable and hemp oils but I also use
butter on my veggies and eat fatty red meats like beef pot roast and lamb
on a regular basis, rarely eating chicken and only eating fish once every
couple of months.

Bev-Ann said:

I had my total cholesterol checked at a pharmacy more than 10 years ago and
it was 5.1 mmol/L. In Canada, 5.2 mmol/L is the upper limit for a "normal"
reading. Since it was below the upper limit, I didn't have it investigated
further but my diet consisted mainly of fast food, so I can only assume it
would have gone up since then.
I had a full cholesterol panel done 3 weeks ago after being LC for 10
months. The total had dropped to 4.0 mmol/L, my triglycerides are BELOW
the recommended range and my LDL/HDL ratio is very low as well. In fact,
my doctor said I had the best results he'd ever seen! I know I don't have
prior results to compare these to, but I find it hard to believe that they
would be this good had I continued my high-carb lifestyle.

-----
Bev

I should point out that I don't follow South Beach either and never pay
attention to cholesterol or saturated fats in my diet. My average daily
fat intake is very high (by old-fashioned medical standards) at between 55
and 65% of calories. I use a lot of vegetable and hemp oils but I also use
butter on my veggies and eat fatty red meats like beef pot roast and lamb
on a regular basis, rarely eating chicken and only eating fish once every
couple of months.

Bev-Ann said:

I had my total cholesterol checked at a pharmacy more than 10 years ago and
it was 5.1 mmol/L. In Canada, 5.2 mmol/L is the upper limit for a "normal"
reading. Since it was below the upper limit, I didn't have it investigated
further but my diet consisted mainly of fast food, so I can only assume it
would have gone up since then.
I had a full cholesterol panel done 3 weeks ago after being LC for 10
months. The total had dropped to 4.0 mmol/L, my triglycerides are BELOW
the recommended range and my LDL/HDL ratio is very low as well. In fact,
my doctor said I had the best results he'd ever seen! I know I don't have
prior results to compare these to, but I find it hard to believe that they
would be this good had I continued my high-carb lifestyle.

-----
Bev

"Greg Farrell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have been on South Beach diet for 3 months, primarily to lower my
cholesterol. My total cholestrol was below 200 for over 20 years but
has been going up steadily for about 3 years. It was at 273 when I
started the diet. Has anyone had any luck bring down theirs down with
low carb dieting?

Three years ago, I went on LC to bring down weight from a high of 260 pounds
At the time I went on the diet, my total cholestrol was about 280. This was
also based on a progression over a period of 4 years, so I know it wasn't a
blip. When I was retested about 6 months later after dropping 30 pounds, I
was at about 240 for a 40 point drop without medication. I don't remember
the exact breakdown, but in addition to the drop, the LC went down much less
and the HC was the majority of the drop.

I also increased my triglyc from 80 to about 90, which they say is good. In
addition, in the last year, I've switched out alot of beef in favor of
chicken and pork. I'm due for another test his comming March, so we'll see
if the movement continues.

jposada wrote:
|| "Greg Farrell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
|| news:[email hidden]...
||| I have been on South Beach diet for 3 months, primarily to lower my
||| cholesterol. My total cholestrol was below 200 for over 20 years
||| but
||| has been going up steadily for about 3 years. It was at 273 when I
||| started the diet. Has anyone had any luck bring down theirs down
||| with low carb dieting?
||
|| Three years ago, I went on LC to bring down weight from a high of
|| 260 pounds At the time I went on the diet, my total cholestrol was
|| about 280. This was also based on a progression over a period of 4
|| years, so I know it wasn't a blip. When I was retested about 6
|| months later after dropping 30 pounds, I was at about 240 for a 40
|| point drop without medication. I don't remember the exact breakdown,
|| but in addition to the drop, the LC went down much less and the HC
|| was the majority of the drop.
||
|| I also increased my triglyc from 80 to about 90, which they say is
|| good. In addition, in the last year, I've switched out alot of beef
|| in favor of chicken and pork. I'm due for another test his comming
|| March, so we'll see if the movement continues.

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

jposada wrote:
|| "Greg Farrell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
|| news:[email hidden]...
||| I have been on South Beach diet for 3 months, primarily to lower my
||| cholesterol. My total cholestrol was below 200 for over 20 years
||| but
||| has been going up steadily for about 3 years. It was at 273 when I
||| started the diet. Has anyone had any luck bring down theirs down
||| with low carb dieting?
||
|| Three years ago, I went on LC to bring down weight from a high of
|| 260 pounds At the time I went on the diet, my total cholestrol was
|| about 280. This was also based on a progression over a period of 4
|| years, so I know it wasn't a blip. When I was retested about 6
|| months later after dropping 30 pounds, I was at about 240 for a 40
|| point drop without medication. I don't remember the exact breakdown,
|| but in addition to the drop, the LC went down much less and the HC
|| was the majority of the drop.
||
|| I also increased my triglyc from 80 to about 90, which they say is
|| good. In addition, in the last year, I've switched out alot of beef
|| in favor of chicken and pork. I'm due for another test his comming
|| March, so we'll see if the movement continues.

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

Peace,
Pen

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

Peace,
Pen

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this could
have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for 65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour after
finishing the ride.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this could
have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for 65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour
after
finishing the ride.

I dunno..but when mine was ~35, I felt pretty damn crappy. My body just
didn't work right...eyesight deteriorated, had some hypo episodes, sex was
outta the question, joints were poor...constantly injured or in some kind of
pain. *shrugs* I felt better when they got back up to about 70-ish. Last
year there was some rather interesting evidence that says people with very
low triglycerides who have a stroke will not recover anywhere near as well
as those who have more 'normal' values (generally 55-105 or so) and suffer a
more serious stroke to begin with. Triglycerides are apparently important
to cellular function, so...take it for whatever it's worth.

Peace,
Pen

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this could
have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for 65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour
after
finishing the ride.

I dunno..but when mine was ~35, I felt pretty damn crappy. My body just
didn't work right...eyesight deteriorated, had some hypo episodes, sex was
outta the question, joints were poor...constantly injured or in some kind of
pain. *shrugs* I felt better when they got back up to about 70-ish. Last
year there was some rather interesting evidence that says people with very
low triglycerides who have a stroke will not recover anywhere near as well
as those who have more 'normal' values (generally 55-105 or so) and suffer a
more serious stroke to begin with. Triglycerides are apparently important
to cellular function, so...take it for whatever it's worth.

Peace,
Pen

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>
>
> I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this

could

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for 65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour
after
finishing the ride.

I dunno..but when mine was ~35, I felt pretty damn crappy. My body just
didn't work right...eyesight deteriorated, had some hypo episodes, sex was
outta the question, joints were poor...constantly injured or in some kind

of

Quoted message said:

pain. *shrugs* I felt better when they got back up to about 70-ish.

Last

Quoted message said:

year there was some rather interesting evidence that says people with very
low triglycerides who have a stroke will not recover anywhere near as well
as those who have more 'normal' values (generally 55-105 or so) and suffer

a

Quoted message said:

more serious stroke to begin with. Triglycerides are apparently important
to cellular function, so...take it for whatever it's worth.

Interesting. When mine were at the levels I listed, I felt great and was
exercising all the time and doing LC pretty much all the time. And I'm a
type 2 diabetic, too.

Who knows!

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:14:28 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this
could
have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for 65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour
after
finishing the ride.

Did you have a recuperation drink of carbs? I found that the time to
really take in carbs is just after your ride. This way, most of the blood
sugar goes to your muscles. However, I also eat about 20g carbs per hour
of riding.

--
Bob in CT

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:14:28 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this
could
have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for 65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour
after
finishing the ride.

Did you have a recuperation drink of carbs? I found that the time to
really take in carbs is just after your ride. This way, most of the blood
sugar goes to your muscles. However, I also eat about 20g carbs per hour
of riding.

--
Bob in CT

"Bob M" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:14:28 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

<snip>
>
> I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.

Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.

http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this
could
have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for 65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour
after
finishing the ride.

Did you have a recuperation drink of carbs? I found that the time to
really take in carbs is just after your ride. This way, most of the blood
sugar goes to your muscles. However, I also eat about 20g carbs per hour
of riding.

I've tried that. However, it didn't help, probaby because it was too few
carbs. I did evolve to eat carbs while riding, though, as a result going
hypo afterwards. However, 120 g of carbs probably wouldn't help too much,
either. I eat a mix of carbs and protein afterwards, now. Typically, I
don't have problems on short, less intense rides.

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.
>
> Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
> There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.
>
> http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx
>

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of
both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this

could

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for
65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour
after
finishing the ride.

I dunno..but when mine was ~35, I felt pretty damn crappy. My body just
didn't work right...eyesight deteriorated, had some hypo episodes, sex
was
outta the question, joints were poor...constantly injured or in some kind

of

Quoted message said:

pain. *shrugs* I felt better when they got back up to about 70-ish.

Last

Quoted message said:

year there was some rather interesting evidence that says people with
very
low triglycerides who have a stroke will not recover anywhere near as
well
as those who have more 'normal' values (generally 55-105 or so) and
suffer

a

Quoted message said:

more serious stroke to begin with. Triglycerides are apparently
important
to cellular function, so...take it for whatever it's worth.

Interesting. When mine were at the levels I listed, I felt great and was
exercising all the time and doing LC pretty much all the time. And I'm a
type 2 diabetic, too.

Who knows!

Yeah. I'm not a diabetic, so maybe that's got something to do with it. The
human body is so complex...

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Penelope Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
>
> "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
> <snip>
> >
> > I've never heard that increasing trigs was good.
>
> Actually, very low triglycerides < 50, can produce medical symptoms.
> There's actually a study being undertaken on it by the US goverment.
>
> http://patientrecruitment.nhlbi.nih.gov/LipidDisorders.aspx
>

[censored]! My last two were 49 and 47 (very last). The range listed of
both
tests says 0 to 149 are the "acceptable limits." I wonder if this

could

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have anything to do with my going hypoglycemic after bike riding for
65+
miles on very low carbs? Basically, I found that if I did that kind of
distance without eating lots of carbs I'd get very weak about an hour
after
finishing the ride.

I dunno..but when mine was ~35, I felt pretty damn crappy. My body just
didn't work right...eyesight deteriorated, had some hypo episodes, sex
was
outta the question, joints were poor...constantly injured or in some kind

of

Quoted message said:

pain. *shrugs* I felt better when they got back up to about 70-ish.

Last

Quoted message said:

year there was some rather interesting evidence that says people with
very
low triglycerides who have a stroke will not recover anywhere near as
well
as those who have more 'normal' values (generally 55-105 or so) and
suffer

a

Quoted message said:

more serious stroke to begin with. Triglycerides are apparently
important
to cellular function, so...take it for whatever it's worth.

Interesting. When mine were at the levels I listed, I felt great and was
exercising all the time and doing LC pretty much all the time. And I'm a
type 2 diabetic, too.

Who knows!

Yeah. I'm not a diabetic, so maybe that's got something to do with it. The
human body is so complex...

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 14:06:57 -0500, Roger Zoul <[email hidden]>
wrote:

[cut]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did you have a recuperation drink of carbs? I found that the time to
really take in carbs is just after your ride. This way, most of the
blood
sugar goes to your muscles. However, I also eat about 20g carbs per
hour
of riding.

I've tried that. However, it didn't help, probaby because it was too few
carbs. I did evolve to eat carbs while riding, though, as a result going
hypo afterwards. However, 120 g of carbs probably wouldn't help too
much,
either. I eat a mix of carbs and protein afterwards, now. Typically, I
don't have problems on short, less intense rides.

I neglected to mention that I also take in protein before and during (and
typically after) long rides. I've found that a combination of protein and
carbs fills me up and seems to help recuperation better than just carbs.
So, did you carb up for rides, then? Sometimes I would eat fruit the day
before a long ride, in an effort to have "better" carbs than, say, pasta,
for a carb up. I only did for long rides, though.

--
Bob in CT