Showing posts with label name-mark sisson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label name-mark sisson. Show all posts

Wednesday, 3 April 2013

How to Read a Cholesterol Test | Mark's Daily Apple

How to Read a Cholesterol Test | Mark's Daily Apple

Before we get into the big job of interpreting cholesterol numbers, let’s review what cholesterol actually is.


Cholesterol is cholesterol: a waxy steroid of fat that serves as an essential structural component of cellular membranes and in the production of steroid hormones, vitamin D, and bile acids. Contrary to what the terminology indicates, there’s actually only one “type” of cholesterol in the human body, and it’s called, quite simply, cholesterol. What we think of when we use the word “cholesterol” is actually a lipoprotein – a fatty conglomerate of protein and lipids that delivers cholesterol and fat and fat-soluble nutrients to different parts of the body. It’s not just free cholesterol floating around in your blood; it’s cholesterol bound up by lipoproteins.


So LDL, HDL, VLDL, all those (in)famous measurements we get at the doctor’s office are just different types of lipoproteins. They’re not actually cholesterol. I discussed this briefly a couple years back, and there’s always Griff’s big primer in the forum, so take the time to go check out both. And also take a peak at The Definitive Guide to Cholesterol for review.

Okay, let’s talk about the most commonly bandied-about cholesterol numbers: LDL-C and HDL-C. What do they really mean? What are they actually measuring?

To understand what these numbers mean, let’s play the freeway analogy game. Both LDL-C and HDL-C, the standard, basic readings you get from the lab, do not reflect the number of LDL or HDL particles – the number of lipoproteins – in your serum. Instead, they reflect the total amount of cholesterol contained in your LDL and HDL particles. Hence, the “C” in LDL/HDL-C, which stands for “cholesterol.” Measuring the LDL/HDL-C  and then making potentially life-changing health decisions based on the number is like counting the number of people riding in vehicles on a freeway to determine the severity of traffic. It’s data, and it might give you a rough approximation of the situation, but it’s not as useful as actually counting the number of vehicles. A reading of 100 could mean you’re dealing with a hundred compact cars, each carrying a single driver, or it could mean you’ve got four buses carrying 25 passengers each. Or it could be a couple buses and the rest cars. You simply don’t know how bad (or good) traffic is until you get a direct measurement of LDL and HDL particle number.

Say you go ahead and get those particle numbers directly measured. You’re still limited, because that is just a single datapoint from a specific time in your life/day/week. Analogies are fun and helpful, I think, so let’s take this traffic and freeway stuff further. To get an accurate idea of traffic, you need constant updates, right? Imagine you counted the number of cars on the freeway at 12:05 on a Saturday afternoon four weeks ago. That’s great, but what does it tell you about traffic at 5 PM on a Thursday? Even though it’s the same stretch of asphalt/artery, we can’t divine much at all from that single measurement. You need more data points. That traffic fluctuates wildly is entirely uncontroversial. Any southern Californian could tell you that. But did you know that LDL, HDL, and total cholesterol readings in the same person can fluctuate just as wildly, oftentimes enough to move that person from “desirable” to “high risk” and back to “desirable” lipid status without any nutritional or lifestyle changes in the span of a few mere weeks?

In biology, a single snapshot rarely, if ever, tells the whole story. Who woulda known?

But just because the standard cholesterol test is but a snapshot of a dynamic system in flux doesn’t negate the potential usefulness of getting your cholesterol checked. As much as Conventional Wisdom has gotten things wrong when it comes to cholesterol and heart disease, the two do have a relationship together. There is a connection; contrary to what the AHA might think, we just don’t have it ironed out yet. In my opinion, the most persuasive hypothesis about the real causes of atherosclerosis and heart disease comes from Chris Masterjohn and is highlighted in his recent AHS talk, “Heart Disease and Molecular Degeneration,” and on his blog. It’s a synthesis of the two prevailing notions regarding cholesterol and heart disease – the one which says elevated blood cholesterol plays no causal role in heart disease and the one which says elevated blood cholesterol is the primary cause of heart disease – and it goes something like this:

LDL receptors normally “receive” LDL particles and remove them from circulation so that they can deliver nutrients and cholesterol to cells, and fulfill their normal roles in the body.

If LDL receptor activity is downregulated, LDL particles clear more slowly from and spend more time in the blood. Particles accumulate.

When LDL particles hang out in the blood for longer stretches of time, their fragile polyunsaturated fatty membranes are exposed to more oxidative forces, like inflammation, and their limited store of protective antioxidants can deplete.

When this happens, the LDL particles oxidize.

Once oxidized, LDL particles are taken up by the endothelium – a layer of cells that lines the inside of blood vessels – to form atherosclerotic plaque so they don’t damage the blood vessel. This sounds bad (and is), but it’s preferable to acutely damaging the blood vessels right away.

So it’s the oxidized LDL that gets taken up into the endothelium and precipitates the formation of atherosclerotic plaque, rather than regular LDL. OxLDL, poor receptor activity, and inflammation are the problems. But since measuring oxidized LDL in serum is difficult (oxidized LDL gets taken up out of serum and into the endothelium rather quickly) and expensive, we need other, more realistic, more obtainable methods. We need to work with what we’ve got. It would be great if a doctor could quickly order up an “LDL receptor activity” test, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Enter the various lipid panels.

First up is your basic lipid panel, the standard test the average doctor is going to order for a patient. If you go this route, you’ll typically get four measurements: total cholesterol (TC); high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C); low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C); and triglycerides.

Total cholesterol

What they say: Get that TC below 200, or else (you’ll have a heart attack or you’ll have to pay a higher health insurance premium, if we take you on at all).

My take: Mostly meaningless. Even though the epidemiological evidence suggests a TC between 200 and 240 mg/dl is best for all-cause mortality, we can’t hang our hats on it. First off, total cholesterol is limited because it’s only telling us the amount of cholesterol contained in all our lipoproteins without saying anything about what kind of lipoproteins we have or how many there are. Second, total cholesterol is limited because it’s determined by a bizarre formula – HDL-C+LDL-C+(Triglycerides/5) – that reduces various types of blood lipids, each with a different role in the body and a unique impact on our risk for illness, to mere numbers. Someone with low HDL and high triglycerides could easily have the same TC as someone with high HDL and low triglycerides, so long as the numbers work out. Whether it’s being used to predict wellness or disease, total cholesterol by itself is mostly meaningless.

HDL-C

What they say: “Good” cholesterol. It’s the “garbage truck” that cleans up “excessive” cholesterol and fat from tissues, so the higher the better! Though men and women should strive for levels exceeding 60 mg/dl, above 40 is acceptable for the former and above 50 is acceptable for the latter.

My take: Higher HDL-Cs correlate strongly with better cardiovascular health. No real argument here. Higher HDLs are desirable. Just remember, it’s only a snapshot of a glimpse into the cholesterol content of your HDL particles. Among most groups tested, the TC:HDL ratio is actually a strong indicator of heart disease risk, with higher ratios corresponding to higher risks. Note, though, that no Primal Blueprint adherents were among the groups analyzed, ever.

LDL-C

What they say: Get it as low as humanly possible! I want that low density lipoprotein so low as to be nearly nonexistent. Your body obviously hates you; otherwise, it wouldn’t be producing a potently toxic substance and sending it directly into your endothelial cells to form atherosclerotic plaque! Of course, we’re not actually measuring the number of low density lipoproteins, just the amount of cholesterol contained in them, but still!

My take: While a high LDL-C may indicate a problem, remember that LDL-C only indicates the total amount of cholesterol in your LDL particles. You could easily have a few large particles (good) or a bunch of smaller, denser ones (bad, might indicate poor LDL receptor activity and an LDL that likes to hang out in the blood), but LDL-C alone isn’t enough to know. It’s also just a moment in time, whereas what you’re interested in is the trend. If the trend indicates a steady rise in LDL-C, however, that could hint at poorer LDL clearance and lower LDL receptor activity (and greater susceptibility to oxidation).

Triglycerides

What they say: Lower would be better, sure, but you really gotta do something about that LDL! Anything less than 150 mg/dl is fine.

My take: High triglycerides correlate strongly with low HDL and smaller, denser LDL. High triglycerides, then, could indicate more oxidized (or oxidizable) LDL. The triglycerides of most Primal eaters, especially those on the lower carb side of things, usually hover well below 100 mg/dl. Triglycerides come packaged in VLDL, or very low density lipoproteins (which are calculated by dividing your triglyceride count by 5).

So, what can we learn from a standard lipid test? Not much, actually. We can learn from standard lipid tests, however. If we take a series of regular ol’ lipid measurements, preferably one pre- and several peri-Primal, we can get an idea of our metabolic health. Look for:
  1. Trends – Are your triglycerides going down over time? That’s great. Is your HDL trending up? Also good.
  2. Normal fluctuations – Your numbers can jump around 20-30 points in either direction between readings without it necessarily meaning anything.
  3. TC:HDL-C ratio – Lower is better and indicates fewer LDL particles.
  4. Triglyceride:HDL-C ratio – Lower is better and indicates larger LDL (and, usually, fewer) particles. Ideally, this will be close to 1 or lower; one study (PDF) found that 1.33 was the cut off.
If you’re going to get your cholesterol tested, and the basic labs just aren’t cutting it, you might as well go for one of the premium lab tests: the NMR LipoProfile or maybe the VAP. Rather than rely on indirect estimates and formulas, NMR and VAP directly measure the  size of your lipoproteins. I find NMR to be far more useful, because in addition to measuring particle size, it measures particle count (whereas VAP only estimates the count).

But you probably have holiday shopping to do, and I don’t want to drone on for too long, so I’ll leave it at that for now. Next week, I’ll pick up where I left off and get into what you can expect from NMR and VAP testing, including the downsides and the advantages. After that, I’ll go into some strategies for improving your numbers – or, rather, improving your health which in turn should improve your numbers.

How to Interpret Advanced Cholesterol Test Results | Mark's Daily Apple

How to Interpret Advanced Cholesterol Test Results | Mark's Daily Apple

lipidtest

After last week’s post on interpreting traditional lipid tests, I promised a follow-up post on interpreting the advanced VAP and NMR Lipoprofile tests that provide measurements of particle size and all the various sub-fractions of HDL and LDL particles. I even hinted that it might be worth bypassing the traditional test entirely and going straight to the advanced stuff if you were going to get your cholesterol measured anyway, because of the greater accuracy and more detailed picture of your lipids the VAP and NMR tests provide.


Well, I’m going to have to reevaluate my stance on the matter and rethink that original suggestion. Recent evidence shows and commentary from researchers concludes that the various advanced lipoprotein particle classification tests can produce wildly disparate results on the same samples to the point of rendering them unreliable (sound familiar?), especially if we’re going to be evaluating our health based on the results. A 2009 systematic review found that the available LDL subfraction literature ”does not provide adequate data about comparability in terms of test performance to choose one or another method to serve as a standard nor are data on comparability in terms of predicting CVD outcomes.” In short, it could – and probably does – have diagnostic value, but there are no real standards for measurement or analysis that would allow us to use the information. Yet.

The only study with a full text available examined four different methods for testing LDL subfraction size. Authors took blood samples from 10 females and 30 males, all healthy and ranging from ages 23 through 61 years, which were then sent out to the labs for testing. Four samples from each person (taken one after the other without any lag time in between) were sent out. Each lab used a different type of LDL fractionation and particle size analysis:
  1. LDL Segmented Gradient Gel Electrophoresis – separates LDL particles into 7 subfractions by size and shape
  2. Vertical Auto Profile-11, or VAP – separates LDL particles into 6 subfractions by size, LDL-1 (most buoyant) through LDL-6 (least buoyant)
  3. NMR Lipoprofile – separates LDL particles into A (large, fluffy, buoyant) or B (small, dense)
  4. Quantimetrix Lipoprint LDL System (sounds like a drug from a Philip K. Dick novel), or tube gel electrophoresis – analyzes lipoprotein sizes and assigns either a normal (less than 5.5), intermediate risk (5.5 to 8.5), or atherogenic (over 8.5) “LDLSF score”
The results “varied considerably among the methods.” According to tube gel electrophoresis, 79% of the people sampled fell into large, fluffy pattern A LDL, while VAP found that only 8% of samples were pattern A. Both VAP and NMR stuck 54% of the people into pattern B, but tube gel electrophoresis classified just 5% (two people) as pattern B. As for type A/B (a roughly equal mix of small, dense LDL and fluffy LDL), VAP classified 2.5 times more samples as A/B than did tube gel electrophoresis and gradiant gel electrophoresis (NMR doesn’t do A/B). For a nice visual of the discrepancies, check out the LDL phenotype distribution data in graph form.

When all was said and done, the four methods agreed on the classification of a mere three people whose lipids they measured. NMR matched the other methods the most and VAP the least, for what it’s worth.

And while it’s true that LDL-C measurements were very different across the different methodologies (as this graph shows), the within-patient relative measurement of LDL-C was maintained across all methodologies; the same was not true for LDL particle size measurements.

I think determining LDL particle size will be helpful in assessing a person’s risk for heart disease. I just don’t think we can use the tests that are currently available to do it, not reliably at least. Which do you choose – VAP or NMR or one of the electrophoresis methods? According to the data, NMR’s more likely to put you in pattern A than VAP, but that’s an indictment of the variability in accuracy of the various methods. Relying on that is just trying to game the system. It might be more or less reliable than VAP, but we can’t know that yet.

Beyond the traditional lipid tests, however, there is a measure that’s worth looking into:
Apolipoprotein B.

Apolipoprotein B is a protein residing in LDL particles. In fact, every single LDL particle has a single ApoB, making ApoB an effective measurement of LDL particle count. By all accounts I could find, ApoB is reliable and accurate. Every LDL particle has one ApoB, and along with TC:HD ratio, ApoB count is a strong predictor of heart disease risk (again, with the caveat that these studies are on populations leading a decidedly unPrimal and highly inflammatory lifestyle). If you have a lot of ApoB, you have a lot of LDL particles, which could mean the LDL receptor activity is down-regulated. Or, it could mean you’re losing weight, which can affect lipid values in multiple ways. Or, it could mean that today was a particularly “high ApoB day” and that getting it tested next week will give a different result – simply due to natural fluctuations. You just don’t know.

What I’d really like to see is a little high-def moving graphical representation of your arterial health. Like, instead of getting a single snapshot of the state of your blood lipids, you’d go into the doctor’s office and strap on a non-invasive device (which, if required for its operation, applies the perfect dose of ionizing radiation to provoke a hormetic response, rather than a pathogenic one) that monitors your blood lipid activity. You’d wear it for maybe a week, during which time it would monitor your blood, download the data, and give you a play-by-play summary of what exactly happened in your body. It would even convert it into visual form, so you could watch a nice Pixar-quality video at the end showing cartoon LDL particles with frowny faces oxidizing (or not), interacting with receptors (or not), happy-faced ones delivering cholesterol to be turned into sex hormones, increasing because thyroid health is compromised and LDL receptors down-regulate, decreasing because they’re making more deliveries to cells (good), decreasing because you had a stressful four days of no sleep and low-nutrient junk food and the resulting systemic inflammation was oxidizing them and they ended up as atherosclerotic plaque and no longer in your bloodstream to be measured. Such a device would be great and truly useful.

We don’t have that (yet), but what we do have, while imperfect, isn’t totally useless. Using a traditional lipid test and ApoB, we can still get clues. Next time we talk about this stuff, I’ll go over some strategies for responding to these numbers – if any response is warranted.

Thanks for reading, and be sure to leave a comment in the comment board telling us of your experience with advanced lipid tests, especially if you’ve had several done using different methods (did they agree with each other?).

Cholesterol - A Primer (Attempt 2) | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page

Cholesterol - A Primer (Attempt 2) | Mark's Daily Apple Health and Fitness Forum page

DEFINITIONS OF TERMS


Total cholesterol: This is the total of all three kinds of cholesterol: HDL + LDL + Triglycerides. Each of them has a different function inside the body.


The recommended level of total cholesterol these days is 200 or less.


Cholesterol: A waxy substance that is actually an alcohol (hence the -ol suffix). It's carried by lipoproteins (fats and proteins) through the water-based environment of the bloodstream (remember that water and oil don't mix). It's necessary to sustain cell wall integrity and to repair damaged cell walls within (among other places) the arterial system of the body. Many things can damage the cell walls in the arteries and veins, including (but not limited to) stress, high blood sugar, high insulin levels, and lack of physical activity. When damage happens to these cell walls, the body has to do something about it. Normally, it will repair them with saturated fat and protein, which is what cell walls are made of, but if we're not eating those things, the body can't produce them out of thin air, so it sends cholesterol in as a stopgap measure. Your body uses cholesterol to make a "patch" over cell walls that need to be repaired, but if we don't give it the proper amount of raw materials (saturated fat and protein) to repair them with, the patch will stay there, and like any old bandage, eventually start to peel off. In the absence of the proper raw materials, the body slaps another layer of cholesterol over them to make sure that the patch doesn't break. This is where cholesterol buildup, or plaque, in the arteries comes from. The longer the body has to go without the right raw materials, the worse the problem gets, and these plaques can eventually break off, just like a scab on the outside of your body does, and block up the arteries, causing a heart attack or a stroke. The technical term used for "increases risk of heart disease" is "atherosclerotic," which, translated out of its non-English roots, means "athero" (artery) "sclerotic" (hardening).


One of the problems with the way that current medical science treats cholesterol is that it doesn't recognize the function of cholesterol. It just sees higher cholesterol readings and naively assumes that since high cholesterol and heart disease "seem" to go together, that cholesterol must be the cause of heart disease. The real cause of heart disease is what causes both the damage to the cell walls and the (ideally) temporary patches of cholesterol: not enough of the right raw materials being given to the body, and too much of the stuff that damages the cell walls being given to the body - to wit, too many carbs and not enough saturated fat or protein. It's like blaming firemen for a fire, or blaming a bandage for the wound, and saying "if we take away some firemen, the fire will die out," or "if we take the bandage off the wound, the wound will heal without help" (even though it's usually a wound that needs stitches in order to close up and heal). It's overly simplistic, it's a junior-high-school-level mistake, and it makes no sense.


LDL (Low-Density Lipoprotein): This has been blamed as the "bad" cholesterol because its job is to go around inside your body, bringing cholesterol from the liver to spots that need repair, and placing cholesterol "patches" on them. There are two types: Pattern A and Pattern B. Sometimes you'll have a mixed bag: Pattern A/B, some of each. When you have a VAP test, this is part of what gets reported. Pattern A is "large and fluffy" and non-atherosclerotic, like a cotton ball. Pattern B is "small and dense" and atherosclerotic, like a BB pellet. You want to have Pattern A. Pattern B is sometimes called "oxidized" cholesterol, and because it's so small and dense, it can penetrate the endothelium (the thin layer of cells that line the inside of the blood vessels), just like a BB pellet penetrates skin. So Pattern B LDL is worrisome, because it can also cause damage to the cell walls inside the arteries. LDL becomes Pattern B due to a number of reasons, but one of the main ones is insulin resistance. If you lower your insulin resistance (which low-carbers almost always manage to do), then your LDL Pattern B goes down, which is good.


The recommended level of LDL these days is no more than 150, and most doctors now want it below 100.


HDL (High-Density Lipoprotein): This is considered the "good" cholesterol because its job is to go around inside your body and clean up used cholesterol. HDL goes around after the patched area has been repaired, and cleans up the old cholesterol patches, taking them back to the liver for processing and breakdown. You can see why HDL is high-density: it carries old cholesterols with it to the liver, so it's got lots of tightly-packed stuff on it, hence high-density. Low-density LDL is just the opposite - it's dropping cholesterol here and there, so it's no longer as dense.


The recommended level of HDL these days is at least 40 for women and 50 for men. Some recommendations are "get it above 60."


Triglycerides: The "cholesterols" made in the liver from the carbs you eat. They are technically not cholesterol at all, but fat. They're used by cells for energy. A third kind of cholesterol called VLDL (very low-density lipoprotein) carries triglycerides around in the body, delivering them to cells for energy. When VLDLs lose most of their triglycerides, they become smaller and denser, and now they're LDLs instead of VLDLs. Triglycerides can shoot the level of VLDL way, way up - the more triglycerides you have, the more VLDL is needed to move it around the body. So if you're eating lots of carbs, your triglycerides are going to be higher, and since VLDL becomes LDL when it deposits its triglycerides into the cells, your LDL will also be higher.


The recommended level of triglycerides these days is under 150.


EQUATIONS USED FOR CHOLESTEROL MEASUREMENT


There are two equations used today for cholesterol measurement. The first one, and the one most commonly used, is called the Friedewald equation. It works fine as long as your triglycerides are at least 100 and below 400, but outside of that range things get wonky. And the main problem is, when your triglycerides are below 100, it overestimates LDL levels. A quick rundown:


The Friedewald formula used to calculate total cholesterol is:


LDL + HDL + [Trigs/5] = total.


But because LDL are so small in comparison to the other particles, what they usually do is calculate your LDL. They measure your HDL, your Trigs and your Total - so the equation becomes:


Total - (HDL + [Trigs/5]) = LDL.


(I don't know why the triglycerides are divided by 5. I haven't yet found that out.)


Because this equation miscalculates LDL if you drop below 100 trigs, I'd recommend that you always, always demand a VAP test, which is a direct measurement of the LDL. People who restrict carbs usually have very low triglycerides, which means that we're going to have problems if the lab uses the Friedewald equation to calculate our LDL levels. According to Dr. Mary Vernon, "These labs in which the LDL is calculated are not accurate if your triglycerides are below 100... The equation used to calculate these numbers makes assumptions which are not accurate when triglycerides are low." (from http://www.livinlavidalowcarb.blogsp...t-results.html).


To give an example of how it doesn't calculate LDL correctly, let's look at a hypothetical cholesterol result. Let's say that Joe the Primal Dude goes in for a lipid profile after six months on the Primal diet. Here's his results (before they do the LDL calculation):


Total: 250 (ideal <200)

HDL: 70 (ideal >60)

LDL: ? (must be calculated) (ideal <100)

Trig: 40 (ideal <150)


This is a common profile for someone who&#39;s been low-carbing/eating Primally for a while. Now, when we put that into the Friedewald equation, here&#39;s what we get:


250 - (70 + (40/5)) = LDL

250 - (70 + 8) = LDL

250 - 78 = LDL

250 - 78 = 172


This may give Joe&#39;s doctor a heart attack if he doesn&#39;t know what he&#39;s looking at, as many doctors don&#39;t. To him, Joe&#39;s LDL and total cholesterol levels are way above the "ideal" numbers, and that must mean that Joe is headed for a heart attack or a stroke if he doesn&#39;t take a statin drug immediately and get those numbers down.


For many doctors, this level of analysis is as far as they go. The nuanced information about the two types of LDL is something they either don&#39;t have or aren&#39;t aware of. And recognizing that if Joe&#39;s HDL were lower, his total cholesterol would be lower too - they don&#39;t often see that, either.


However, there is a newer equation, called the Iranian Equation, that does a better job of calculating LDL when trigs are below 100. That equation is:


(Total/1.19) + (Trig/1.9) - (HDL/1.1) -38 = LDL


Let&#39;s plug Joe&#39;s numbers into this equation and see what we get.


(250/1.19) + (40/1.9) - (70/1.1) - 38 = LDL

210 + 21 - 64 - 38 = LDL

231 - 102 = 129


Look at that. It&#39;s a difference of almost 50 points in Joe&#39;s favor. With the Iranian equation, his numbers come out to:


Total: 250

HDL: 70

LDL: 129

Trig: 40


Part of the reason the Friedewald equation doesn&#39;t work so well is that Trig/5 issue. The Friedewald equation assumes that anything that isn&#39;t HDL or triglycerides is LDL. LDL is the "leftover" number. Well, when your trigs are 200/5, the number it will subtract from the overall total is 40, but when your trigs are 40/5, the number it will subtract from the overall total is 8. That&#39;s a big difference, because the smaller your trigs are, the more of the "leftover" number in the equation gets attributed to LDL, and that&#39;s really misleading.


CHOLESTEROL RATIOS, AND WHY THEY'RE MORE IMPORTANT THAN TOTAL CHOLESTEROL


There are three ratios that scientists have found which measure the impact of cholesterol in the body. These are the ratios between the total amount of cholesterol measured and the HDL (Total/HDL), between triglycerides and HDL (Trig/HDL), and between LDL and HDL (LDL/HDL). Each one is an indicator of something different. Many doctors don't pay attention to these ratios, and that's a shame, because they're a far better indicator of cardiovascular health than the total cholesterol number. You'll see why in a minute.


The ideal ratio of Total/HDL is 4.4 for women and 5 for men. Also, according to http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/523.cfm and several other sites, the ratio of your trigs to your HDL will indicate whether your LDL is small and dense (bad - Pattern B) or large and fluffy (neutral - Pattern A). A larger number indicates smaller LDL particles and a smaller number indicates larger LDL particles. It's an inverse relationship.


The ideal ratio of Trig/HDL is 2 or below. 4 is high. 6 is "danger!!" This ratio indicates the level of risk for heart disease. Additionally, a low ratio of Trig/HDL is great because it's a semi-reliable indicator of lower free insulin levels. Lower free insulin is good. (However, this doesn't appear to work for those of African descent, so take that with a grain of salt.)


The ideal ratio of LDL to HDL is 4.3 or lower. 4.4 to 7.1 is average. 7.1 to 11 is moderate. 11 or more means you're at high risk for developing heart disease. The ratio of LDL to HDL is considered to be a marker of carotid plaque, or how much plaque you have built up in your arteries.


THE BOTTOM LINE


So if we look at Joe's results (using the Iranian equation), his ratios are:


Total/HDL: 250/70 or 3.57 (ideal = 5 or below)

Trig/HDL: 40/70 or 0.57 (ideal = 2 or below)

LDL/HDL: 129/70 or 1.84 (ideal = 4.3 or below)


Even if we use the Friedewald equation (with its misleading, overestimated LDL), Joe still does pretty well:


Total/HDL: 250/70 or 3.57 (ideal = 5 or below)

Trig/HDL: 40/70 or 0.57 (ideal = 2 or below)

LDL/HDL: 172/70 or 2.45 (ideal = 4.3 or below)


In all cases, Joe's ratios are well below the "ideal" - and being below the ideal is awesome. And look at that ratio of trigs to HDL! It's a great indicator of lower free insulin levels for Joe, and the ratio of Total/HDL also says that his LDL is probably (mostly) Pattern A.


Let's compare that to Pat, who's been on a low-fat, high-carb diet and exercising with chronic cardio, and whose doctor thinks he's doing really well because his cholesterol tests came back with these numbers:


Total: 180

HDL: 25

LDL (calculated with the basic Friedewald equation): 131, or (calculated with the Iranian equation): 153

Triglycerides: 120


Pat's ratios are:


Total/HDL: 180/25 or 7.2 (ideal = 5 or below)

Trig/HDL: 120/25 or 4.8 (ideal = 2 or below)

LDL/HDL: 131/25 or 5.24 (Friedewald LDL); 153/25 or 6.12 (Iranian LDL) (ideal = 4.3 or below)


Compared to Joe, Pat's got one foot in a heart disease grave! His Total/HDL is way above the ideal, his trig/HDL is in the "nearly danger" zone, and his LDL/HDL says "Look, you're at average risk for heart disease and heading higher." But if the doctor only focuses on total cholesterol, Joe's the one who'll be put on a statin, while Pat might be advised to find ways to bring up that HDL number a little bit, if his doctor does anything other than congratulate him on his "good" cholesterol numbers. And way too many doctors focus only on total cholesterol.


References:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cho...levels/CL00001 for information on recommended cholesterol levels

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/w...king-the-myth/ for more information about cholesterol generally

http://www.atherotech.com/images/vap...sterolTest.pdf for more information about the specific results of a VAP test

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664115/ for information about the ratio of triglycerides to HDL

http://www.lipidsonline.org/news/article.cfm?aid=8583 has an article about the LDL/HDL ratio

http://www.healthtipscity.com/cholesterol/LDL-HDL.php has the numbers I cited for LDL/HDL ratio level meanings

http://www.atherotech.com/images/vap...VAPResults.pdf has information about insulin resistance raising Pattern B cholesterol.

Other information about cholesterol was found in Anthony Colpo's book "The Great Cholesterol Con" (which is entirely based on peer-reviewed research), the Protein Power books by Drs. Michael and Mary Dan Eades, Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (again, with a ton of peer-reviewed research), and Mark Sisson's "Primal Blueprint."
Last edited by Griff; 08-13-2010 at 07:08 PM.