If I ate trash, I’d be very concerned
As long as I make sure I don’t, that I avoid omegas 6, refined sugar, I don’t melt fat&simple carbs, with good cholesterol and TG ratios, then I wouldn’t care less about these old school charts… All has been said in the first 4 or 5 answers by DoubleDeuce, AG, mertdawg.
[quote]tontongg wrote:
If I ate trash, I’d be very concerned
As long as I make sure I don’t, that I avoid omegas 6, refined sugar, I don’t melt fat&simple carbs, with good cholesterol and TG ratios, then I wouldn’t care less about these old school charts… All has been said in the first 4 or 5 answers by DoubleDeuce, AG, mertdawg.[/quote]
Problem is when i had the first test done, i already had been on a very strict diet for the past 8 months and i had lost 20 kgs. No junk, no sugar, no fast food and an extremely high LDL was something that didnt expect. I had to change something in my clean menu and it worked, whether its outdated or not. Now i will eat yolks and saturated fat in moderation. What i did for the past 2 months is extreme and i know that.
[quote]Gorillakiv83 wrote:
[quote]tontongg wrote:
So why ask if you’re doing your own thing anyway ?
Mertdawg : I was talking about leaky gut syndrom (found the wording heh)
Some scientific research : Potato glycoalkaloids adversely affect intestinal permeability and aggravate inflammatory bowel disease - PubMed [/quote]
what would your game plan be if you had a 182 ldl and 262 total cholestrol?
im really curious.[/quote]
If you had been low carb, I would have upped the carbs to near 150 grams a day first to make sure thyroid was functioning. If that brought the LDL down 30 points or so by itself, your lipid profile would look basically perfect. You would be somewhere between 230 with 60 HDL and 140 LDL to 260 with maybe a 75 HDL and 140 LDL. The reason for that is that I’d rather hace a 140 LDL with more saturated fat in my diet than a 110 with less because the 140 is likely higher just because the LDL particles would be larger and less harmful (if at all).
The truth is that I don’t know enough about LDL and VLDL to even say except that if you were in between your two levels the numbers would look the best to me, not because the other numbers were bad but because you would be right in the middle of the good ranges on most things.
I’m not Turkish, though I have a few connections, and I saw a genetics movie once that found that 30% of all descendants of asia, north africa and europe has genes specific to Turkish ancestry.
By the way, with a 46 triglycerides level, it is probably that your VLDL went DOWN, and its definitely not in the bad zone. VLDL primarily shows up in the triglyceride measurement.
The only question I would have if I were you is whether the upping your carbs a little brought up your thyroid and brought down your LDL, triglycerides and VLDL by itself, or if the saturated fat reduction did (the sat fat reduction may have brought down your HDL a little and your total cholesterol but the moderate carb increase could take care of the bad stuff.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
By the way, with a 46 triglycerides level, it is probably that your VLDL went DOWN, and its definitely not in the bad zone. VLDL primarily shows up in the triglyceride measurement.
The only question I would have if I were you is whether the upping your carbs a little brought up your thyroid and brought down your LDL, triglycerides and VLDL by itself, or if the saturated fat reduction did (the sat fat reduction may have brought down your HDL a little and your total cholesterol but the moderate carb increase could take care of the bad stuff.
[/quote]
i wish i had tested my tyhroid hormones in the first test too.
if i had done that, i would have the exact answer of this question but i think we will never know.
im looking forward to eating my omelette on sunday morning.
by the way i asked if you are Turkish or not because Mert is a common name in Turkey.