Can some of you guys like T-Rex please comment on my numbers? I am 40 and just had my cholesterol checked for the first time. The doctor said everything looked good, but I would like to make sure of this.
Cholesterol 186
Triglycerides 83
HDL 47
LDL 122
Non-HDL 139
VLDL 17
Need analysis wrote:
Can some of you guys please comment on my numbers?
Be careful what you wish for. A lot of old school idiots on these boards giving out false advise.
Triglycerides 83
They could be better (= lower). To lower triglycerides, you must decrease your carb intake, especially grains.
HDL 47
That is really low. Remember, HDL is the GOOD cholesterol. The higher the better. Aim for 70+. How? Increase saturated fat intake.
LDL 122
Don't worry about LDL. LDL is just a number. What's important is LDL particle size.
n > 1 wrote:
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:SWING.....and a MISS. (you're wrong)
As compelling a presuppositional argument is I'm afraid I have to dismiss it on the grounds that it is no argument at all.
I agree.
However, what was your "argument" that I was responding to? Oh right, something like this:
"the science in medical journals is crap. I'm a researcher and I know better. Also, the science in those fad best selling diet books is much better than what you see in the top nutrition and medical journals around the world......because I say so."
Should I really respond seriously to something like that? No, of course not.
Dude, earlier you posted 2 links from the New York Times with regard to HDL. You don't let other people get away with it so why should you. Oh...that's right! You are an egomaniac dingleberry.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
n > 1 wrote:As compelling a presuppositional argument is I'm afraid I have to dismiss it on the grounds that it is no argument at all.
I agree.
However, what was your "argument" that I was responding to? Oh right, something like this:
"the science in medical journals is crap. I'm a researcher and I know better. Also, the science in those fad best selling diet books is much better than what you see in the top nutrition and medical journals around the world......because I say so."
Should I really respond seriously to something like that? No, of course not.
Wow, there are a lot of "I just stayed in a holiday inn express" doctors on here today. Are the dumb old school guys the doctors?
Triglycerides of 83 are completely normal.
Particle size: interesting science but please cite me a real clinical trial where treatment directed at particle size (which potentially is helped by long acting niacin or fibrates) has even imparted a measurable clinical benefit. There are none, and measuring LDL and HDL subfractions are largely done out of interest and dont in the end change practice recommendations. Most everyone with "small dense LDL" has high triglycerides (>150) and low HDL which often correlates to being overweight.
HDL 47 - could be better I agree. But I am surprised the poster didnt invoke measuring HDL subfractions as there are some that are more helpful than others. In the end, measuring them doesnt change management either.
Learn to enjoy natural food and the lively feeling that come from it.
Get used to it.. wrote:
Dude, earlier you posted 2 links from the New York Times with regard to HDL. You don't let other people get away with it so why should you. Oh...that's right! You are an egomaniac dingleberry.
Yes, I did post "2 links from the New York Times with regard to HDL." What is your point (as usual, it is very hard to discern) ?
It wouldn't be hard to discern if your weren't such a moron. You b1tch about everyone using sources from people who are not experts. You did it to me last week. But when it suits you, you pull freaking newspaper sources. OK for you I guess because you are an egomaniac. In the above post you are basically said the cholesterol cure book written by a doctor I believe, was crap, but apparently newspaper articles written by journalists are not
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Get used to it.. wrote:Dude, earlier you posted 2 links from the New York Times with regard to HDL. You don't let other people get away with it so why should you. Oh...that's right! You are an egomaniac dingleberry.
Yes, I did post "2 links from the New York Times with regard to HDL." What is your point (as usual, it is very hard to discern) ?
This is REALLY getting boring and old (having to watch you try and play "gotcha" with me constantly, and failing....constantly). But here goes-
Get used to it.. wrote:
It wouldn't be hard to discern if your weren't such a moron. You b1tch about everyone using sources from people who are not experts. You did it to me last week. But when it suits you, you pull freaking newspaper sources. OK for you I guess because you are an egomaniac. In the above post you are basically said the cholesterol cure book written by a doctor I believe, was crap, but apparently newspaper articles written by journalists are not
I said, basically, that "best selling books" trying to push a NEW, REVOLUTIONARY, overturn-the-old-"truths"-about-health point of view are often crap because.........
The success of these books is almost solely based on a "sexy", exciting (to many I guess) selling point of: 'everything you learned before was a lie! Here is the REAL and NEW TRUTH!' The success is not based on any peer-reviewed accuracy or content. Bank on it. And, yes, many find that selling point appealing and interesting (and if it were true it would be interesting). Of course that is a better selling point than: 'here is the status quo, what you learned 20 years is pretty much what we always told you, and we're gonna tell the same old thing right here again.' Right? Of course it is, who wants to read that?
But suckers like you fall for the BS "NEW, EXCITING BREAKTHROUGH IN DIET AND HEALTH!!!" gimmick every time, so it's a fantastic way to sell books. Sorry you're a sucker, but don't take it out on me because I am raining on your NEW DIET BREAKTHROUGH parade, or exposing that the diet/health wizard (insert your favorite author of one of these bullsh-t books) is not really some super all knowing health wizard who has figured out the REAL TRUTH about health that all of the supposed experts failed to see, but is really just a regular quack looking to capitalize on your ignorance and willingness to be scammed.
And yes, that is completely different than an article written in a world renowned newspaper and which is basically made up almost entirely of quotes from some of the most renowned expert doctors in the field, and the authors of the paper in discussion, which is being published in a prestigious journal. Yes, it is. Sure, one needs to look beyond the headlines, and I always read the original study ( I can get my hand on virtually any full text study, BTW) to verify the accuracy of the reporting.
Furthermore, you always complain that my information is "Old and outdated." But then I quote you the latest results from 2012 or later, and.....you find a new complaint (what a shock). If I link to the original papers discussed in those 2 NYT articles, will make you shut your trap? Of course not. Then you will think you "got me" on something else, but of course, you won't have.
Carry on, sucker.
Oh, and because you thinks books by people (including doctors, but not always) overturning the "MYTHS!" of mainstream medicine and health are good sources of health info, here is a nice list someone compiled just for you and the rest of the "the cholesterol-CVD connection is a myth" crowd-
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Vaccination-List/lm/RR3TOOIFLBUZU
It's a list of anti-vaccination books, each proving, you guessed it, that the good of "Vaccinations (are a) Myth!...and Fraud!" and based on "pseudoscience." You'll probably love them. Hey, some Xmas ideas for you! (I'd suggest some diet books, but I am sure you have most of the Taubes and co. books)
Pleasant reading!
That's a long winded way to avoid the issue you were actually supposed to reply to but I wasn't expecting anything different. I thought you would like it if my posts got old. Thought it remind you of the old research you read. Blogs and articles other people post still are not adequate for you because they are not written by experts, regardless of the research their articles are based on.. But it seems any one who agrees with you is an expert and anyone who doesn't is a moron. Let's just forget about educating future lipid chemists, physiologists and RDs. All they have to do is come here and read what you write and they are instant experts. Thank of all the money pee would save!
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
This is REALLY getting boring and old (having to watch you try and play "gotcha" with me constantly, and failing....constantly). But here goes-
Get used to it.. wrote:It wouldn't be hard to discern if your weren't such a moron. You b1tch about everyone using sources from people who are not experts. You did it to me last week. But when it suits you, you pull freaking newspaper sources. OK for you I guess because you are an egomaniac. In the above post you are basically said the cholesterol cure book written by a doctor I believe, was crap, but apparently newspaper articles written by journalists are not
I said, basically, that "best selling books" trying to push a NEW, REVOLUTIONARY, overturn-the-old-"truths"-about-health point of view are often crap because.........
The success of these books is almost solely based on a "sexy", exciting (to many I guess) selling point of: 'everything you learned before was a lie! Here is the REAL and NEW TRUTH!' The success is not based on any peer-reviewed accuracy or content. Bank on it. And, yes, many find that selling point appealing and interesting (and if it were true it would be interesting). Of course that is a better selling point than: 'here is the status quo, what you learned 20 years is pretty much what we always told you, and we're gonna tell the same old thing right here again.' Right? Of course it is, who wants to read that?
But suckers like you fall for the BS "NEW, EXCITING BREAKTHROUGH IN DIET AND HEALTH!!!" gimmick every time, so it's a fantastic way to sell books. Sorry you're a sucker, but don't take it out on me because I am raining on your NEW DIET BREAKTHROUGH parade, or exposing that the diet/health wizard (insert your favorite author of one of these bullsh-t books) is not really some super all knowing health wizard who has figured out the REAL TRUTH about health that all of the supposed experts failed to see, but is really just a regular quack looking to capitalize on your ignorance and willingness to be scammed.
And yes, that is completely different than an article written in a world renowned newspaper and which is basically made up almost entirely of quotes from some of the most renowned expert doctors in the field, and the authors of the paper in discussion, which is being published in a prestigious journal. Yes, it is. Sure, one needs to look beyond the headlines, and I always read the original study ( I can get my hand on virtually any full text study, BTW) to verify the accuracy of the reporting.
Furthermore, you always complain that my information is "Old and outdated." But then I quote you the latest results from 2012 or later, and.....you find a new complaint (what a shock). If I link to the original papers discussed in those 2 NYT articles, will make you shut your trap? Of course not. Then you will think you "got me" on something else, but of course, you won't have.
Carry on, sucker.
Funny how you go off on unrelated tirades when you get owned. Nice try.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Oh, and because you thinks books by people (including doctors, but not always) overturning the "MYTHS!" of mainstream medicine and health are good sources of health info, here is a nice list someone compiled just for you and the rest of the "the cholesterol-CVD connection is a myth" crowd-
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Vaccination-List/lm/RR3TOOIFLBUZUIt's a list of anti-vaccination books, each proving, you guessed it, that the good of "Vaccinations (are a) Myth!...and Fraud!" and based on "pseudoscience." You'll probably love them. Hey, some Xmas ideas for you! (I'd suggest some diet books, but I am sure you have most of the Taubes and co. books)
Pleasant reading!
Get used to it.. wrote:
Funny how you go off on unrelated tirades when you get owned. Nice try.
Not "unrelated" in the least. I was mocking the "THE CHOLESTEROL MYTH!" book, and explained why. Here I was demonstrating that there are a LOT of books proclaiming some widely held, by the majority of the experts in the field, medical or health view a "MYTH" or "FRAUD!" Vaccines are a good example of that. In short: just because someone writes a popular book capitalizing on the gullibility, paranoia, and willingness to be duped of people like you, doesn't make the content of the book worth a hill of beans. Furthermore, some of the very blog "experts" that you and the other fad-diet clowns rely on for "expertise" in health are written by vaccine skeptics, and I've shown this to be the case before.
So..........once again, for literally probably close the 1000th time on here, you are wrong, my anti-vaccine book list made a good point.
(and if you *really* think, and you can't possibly, that you are "own(ing)" me in any way, shape, or form, I have several "THE CHOLESTEROL-CVD CONNECTION IS A MYTH", "NEW SUPER DIET TO CURE ALL YOUR ILLS", "EVERYTHING YOU LEARNED ABOUT HEALTH AND NUTRITION WAS A LIE!", and "GOV'T SCIENTISTS AT THE CDC AND USDA ARE OUT TO POISON YOU WITH THEIR ADVICE!" books to sell you. Oh wait, you already own those. Brooklyn bridge maybe? )
You are still avoiding the topic and are failing to substantiate any points you make. Yet another tirade trying to save face. Epic fail.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Get used to it.. wrote:Funny how you go off on unrelated tirades when you get owned. Nice try.
Not "unrelated" in the least. I was mocking the "THE CHOLESTEROL MYTH!" book, and explained why. Here I was demonstrating that there are a LOT of books proclaiming some widely held, by the majority of the experts in the field, medical or health view a "MYTH" or "FRAUD!" Vaccines are a good example of that. In short: just because someone writes a popular book capitalizing on the gullibility, paranoia, and willingness to be duped of people like you, doesn't make the content of the book worth a hill of beans. Furthermore, some of the very blog "experts" that you and the other fad-diet clowns rely on for "expertise" in health are written by vaccine skeptics, and I've shown this to be the case before.
So..........once again, for literally probably close the 1000th time on here, you are wrong, my anti-vaccine book list made a good point.
(and if you *really* think, and you can't possibly, that you are "own(ing)" me in any way, shape, or form, I have several "THE CHOLESTEROL-CVD CONNECTION IS A MYTH", "NEW SUPER DIET TO CURE ALL YOUR ILLS", "EVERYTHING YOU LEARNED ABOUT HEALTH AND NUTRITION WAS A LIE!", and "GOV'T SCIENTISTS AT THE CDC AND USDA ARE OUT TO POISON YOU WITH THEIR ADVICE!" books to sell you. Oh wait, you already own those. Brooklyn bridge maybe? )
they are very good I have constant cholesterol problems I have to buy them it would help me a lot to keep track also as a motivation to keep that record always helps
If you give something up for three weeks is is no longer desired.... try it, only 3 weeks to eliminate a bad food item...
Just eat low carb and don't worry about it. High cholesterol just means you'll live longer. (As long as you're low carb.)
Logical Man wrote:
Learn to enjoy natural food and the lively feeling that come from it.
This is the best advice in this thread.
for those who have these problems with cholesterol on amazon there is a very good product to reduce it https://www.amazon.es/Key-Health-Quemagrasas-Complemento-Alimenticio/dp/B08BZX21S5/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_es_ES=%C3%85M%C3%85%C5%BD%C3%95%C3%91&dchild=1&keywords=quemagrasas+natural&qid=1613062194&s=hpc&sr=1-1