Print Topic - Archive

BTD Forums  /  The Encyclopedia/ D'Adamo Library  /  Raising HDL's for an A..
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 1:32am
So here are my numbers...

I am a 48 year old Female.. Warrior. I have not run my SWAMI since 2007.. I know I know... I should run it again :B

Total Cholesterol 162
HDL 38
Ratio TC/HDL 4.3%
Casual  Blood Sugar.. 98

HDL is awfully Low.. :-/
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 1:34am; Reply: 1
olive oil?

is this you?
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 1:34am; Reply: 2
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 1:36am; Reply: 3
use discernment...
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 1:38am; Reply: 4
has this changed compared to previous tests?
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 1:39am; Reply: 5
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 2:08am; Reply: 6
thanks Angela...  some of it is doable. I wonder what keeps it from going up? or what keeps it low?

Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 2:27am; Reply: 7
One of the things I read was Kale juice seems to be pretty effective. I have been debating the whole green smoothie thing. Not really interested in it but I may have to start. :-/

I prefer my tofu for breakfast... Maybe the Kale at night?  with a glass of wine?
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 2:34am; Reply: 8
Quoted Text
The poster above is correct, and his advice is good.  Other tricks to
try to get HDL up are aerobic exercise (the best idea), a bit of
alcohol (one glass of wine a day, no more), and curcumin from the spice
turmeric (any health food store will be able to help-- dose is 200-600
mg curcumin per day with meals).  Aged (deodorized) garlic (even more
than fresh) also raises HDL.  And the drug cimetidine raises HDL for
many, though I'm not sure if it's a good idea to take it for that
reason alone (maybe it is if the effect is large-- try it!)

   In postmenopausal women, estrogen gets HDL up.  For women with a
uterus, addition of a progestin (like progesterone) is necessary, but
this erases some of the estrogen effect.  Micronized progesterone
rather than the artificial medroxyprogesterone/Provera (which is the
products PremPro and Premphase-- avoid these) will have the least
effect in this retrograde direction.

                                     Steve Harris, M.D.

from this random web hit:

Shared this because of the reference to our old pals turmeric and garlic. :)
Posted by: Lola, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 2:37am; Reply: 9
don t forget the power of nostril breathing you As!! ;)
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 2:43am; Reply: 10
What keeps it and lowers it-- that's a question beyond me. Ask the doc?

Things that are your bene's anyway, why not?

I don't know about Ubiquinol. I went back on it based on some figuring some stuff out on my own. I'll have to discuss it with Dr. D or Nash. Feel better on it. Need to get the mercury out, it messes up so much. Going to look into a program from a naturopathic dentist that Dr. Nash 'liked' on Facebook. Want to discuss it with them prior. Getting my stuff together first. :)

Maybe look at niacin rich foods?

Do you have a tweak on pro to help you?
Posted by: Lola, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 2:46am; Reply: 11
I like encouraging people to follow the cardio protocol here
and also the recommendations given in the cardio book.....
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 2:51am; Reply: 12
Yes, mam.

I thought this was also interesting from that last link...

Quoted Text
>"When health-conscious individuals try to lower their total fat intake,
>they may be forgoing some benefit of the polyunsaturated and
>monounsaturated fats, the argument runs.  A diet low in fat and high in
>carbohydrates lowers not only LDL but also HDL.  It also raises the level
>of triglycerides, fatty molecules that raise the risk of heart disease when
>blood levels are excessive".

For the umpty-eleventh time:

Never in nutritional history have so many ostensibly bright people
totally misunderstood something so consistently.

When you examine blood lipid levels as risk factors for something,
this applies only to the population being studied.  It cannot be
extrapolated to another population not representative of the population
under study.

Take, for example, HDLs.  This is a lipid fraction involved in lipid
transport.  High HDLs are said to be good.  Low HDLs are said
to be bad.  HDLs are said to be perhaps the most important
risk factor for coronary artery disease in some studies.

But this applies only to people on a "standard American diet."
Such a diet is associated with a moderately large daily lipid load.

But HDL levels have no predictive value for coronary risk in
people in Finland, who eat a higher fat diet than Americans.  In
this population, the only thing which predicts and correlates
is LDL cholesterol (the bad cholesterol).

Likewise, in people on low fat diets (for which having HDLs to
tote around a lot of blood lipids is much less important, because
there are many fewer lipids to tote around), HDLs are also
unimportant as a coronary risk factor.  People on very low fat
diets often have very low HDL levels and high total cholesterol
over HDL levels, but also have virtually no risk at all of coronary
artery disease.  When people are put on very low fat diets,
their HDLs commonly fall, but this is just a physiologic marker
that the low fat dieter is accomplishing something worthwhile, in
that his/her body recognizes that there is no longer a need for
all of that HDL, just as someone who isn't taking in a lot of
carbohydrate or protein also produces less insulin, because it
is not needed as much.

So, at a certain point in fat restriction, HDLs start to fall disprop-
ortionately to total cholesterol, because the total lipid load is
no longer rate limiting to lipid transport, and a lower amount of
HDL can keep up with the job of clearing the blood lipids.  There
is good research to show that this is precisely what happens.

Now, with regard to triglycerides, this can also be very misleading.
Triglycerides are just free fatty acids packaged on a glycerol skeleton
for transport and storage.  They are the form in which free fatty
acids get transported through the blood to go into fat cells or muscle
cells for storage.

You get circulating triglycerides in your blood in one of two
ways.  First, eat fat in a meal and the fat gets broken down
into free fatty acids by lipase (fat digesting) enzymes, where
they then get packaged into triglycerides for transport and
storage.  So your triglycerides go way, way up after a fatty
meal.  Then the triglycerides eventually find their way into
fat cells, where they get stored.  When you measure a
"fasting" level of triglycerides (the way it is usually done),
the level tends to be at the low point of the day, because
you've had all night to clear the post-eating triglycerides
out of your blood.

Now, let's say that you eat no fat in your diet.  Instead you
eat a lot of carbohydrates.  And let's say that you don't
exercise very much, meaning that the sugar from the absorbed
carbohydrates has no place to go.  What happens to the
extra sugar?

Well, the sugar gets converted into free fatty acid molecules,
which get converted to triglycerides, and transported to your
blood for storage.  But what happens to the blood triglyceride
levels is very interesting.  Someone on a higher fat diet has
a huge increase in triglycerides right after eating, which slowly
goes down as the triglycerides enter fat cells for storage.  So
if you measure triglycerides at several times during the day,
triglyceride levels tend to be quite high and go down low
only by morning, when the person has been fasting for a long

But someone on a high carb/low fat diet does NOT have a
big jump in triglycerides right after a meal.  You measure
afternoon triglycerides in someone on a low fat diet, and they
will be much lower than in someone on a higher fat diet.
But the process of converting excess sugar to fat and then
packaging this into triglycerides and then releasing this
back into the blood for transport and storage into fat cells
takes a long time.  So the "fasting" levels of triglycerides
for someone on a low fat diet will not be all that much lower
than the post eating levels.  And the fasting levels may
even go up in someone who was previously on a higher

Intervention studies are interesting.  Remember that
the Pritikin studies combine low fat with low glycemic,
high fiber carbohydrate, and enough exercise to deplete
muscle glycogen to ensure that when dietary
carbohydrate gets absorbed as sugar that it has someplace
to go.  Well, Pritikin patients have significantly reduced
fasting triglycerides, even though they are eating a diet
which is 75% carbohydrate.  In contrast, Ornish's patients
restrict fat, don't necessarily control the glycemic quality
of the carbs, and get much less exercise.  Their LDL
cholesterol falls brilliantly, but their fasting triglycerides
are not reduced (they even go up, albeit not statistically
significantly).  But I'll wager that even Ornish's patients
had a fall in their total circulating triglycerides per 24 hours,
if not in their fasting levels, while the Pritikin patients
certainly had a major fall in the 24 hour triglycerides, to
go along with the fall in fasting triglycerides.

Another important caveat is the type of circulating triglycerides.
When triglycerides are assembled from free fatty acids
converted from sugar, they are physically of the "fluffly"
type, which are less injurious to blood vessel walls than
the "small, dense" type.

Remember also that absorbed fat gets stored as fat at 98%
efficiency, meaning that there is only a 2% energy "tax"
in the storage process.  But dietary carbohydrate gets
converted to fat and stored as fat at ony 76% efficiency,
meaning that you lose 24% of the excess calories in the
work it takes to do the conversion and storage.

In the October JAMA study, you had people who were
put on diets which ranged between 22% fat and 27% fat.
All groups improved their LDL cholesterol, lost weight, did
not increase insulin, etc.  But people fretted that the 22%
group showed an increase in HDLs and fasting triglycerides.
Remember, that the "quality" of carbohydrates was not
controlled, and the 22% group may well have just substituted
sugar for fat.  And there was no exercise program.  But,
for all we know, the total triglcerides per 24 hours may actually
have gone down in the 22% group (for all of the reasons
discussed above).  And the reduced HDLs was most likely
just a physiological marker for the body getting to the
point where it didn't need as much HDL to handle the reduced
load of dietary fat.

The ideal is to replace fat with veggies,
high fiber grains, and fruits.  And to "graze, not gorge."
And to exercise regularly.  And to try and make sure
that the bulk of the dietary fat is in the form of
endogenous fat (e.g. lettuce is 10% calories as fat),
monounsaturated fat, and fish oils.  The vast majority
of people who do this will see big improvements in
many things which are important to long term well being.

But the "disadvantages" associated with even imperfect
fat restriction diets (such as in the JAMA study) are way
overstated.  The net benefits to all of the groups in that
study of even a highly-flawed low fat diet plan were
convincing and significant.

- Larry Weisenthal

Posted by: Patty H, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 3:12am; Reply: 13
Andrea, I am no expert, but I just went to a NP TODAY and my latest reading BEFORE THE BTD/GTD of my Glucose is 98 as well.  She was not too happy with that.  Yours is exactly the same.

Regarding the HDL, are you taking fish oil? Eating salmon and other oily fish?  Cod and sardines are good, too!  Since you live in the Northeast, fish is readily available to you. How often are you eating fish?

I am an O in the same boat.  Cholesterol that is too low is a problem, too.  My sister has extremely low cholesterol and had a heart attack this December.  We are all individuals.  What are your LDL and your triglyceride numbers?

Have your C-Reactive Protein and your Homocysteine (CARDIO) FPIA checked, too!
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 3:18am; Reply: 14
Maybe it does not mean anything for me personally? how significant these numbers are for someone on a personalized diet is yet to be seen,  I think phase angle is a far greater indicator of health then these numbers.

But..... :-/

I have been thinking about changing my diet yet again, this might be the impetus to do it. I just went to the supermarket and bought 3 heads of kale, to make a green drink in the morning.

I am entering yet another stage of my life peri-menopause and inching toward 50.  I am also working late till 7-8pm which makes eating when I arrive home not so good.

Well lots to think over, thanks for all the information. No need for the CV book, I have the SWAMI pro that I can tweak to my hearts content if I want to.

Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 3:22am; Reply: 15
It is a casual glucose not a fasting one ;).  I suspect a fasting one would be lower. Most of my friends where higher.

It is  a mini mart at work that does testing with a fingerstick and a pipette that goes into a little machine. Accurate? I am not sure. i will probably not got to an MD to have it tested.

Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 3:24am; Reply: 16
Quoted from Andrea AWsec
tweak to my hearts content

;D double meaning.
Posted by: Patty H, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 3:28am; Reply: 17
Quoted Text
I am entering yet another stage of my life peri-menopause and inching toward 50.  I am also working late till 7-8pm which makes eating when I arrive home not so good.

Andrea, this is when the "you know what" hit the fan for me.  I was in excellent health with no issues or complaints and a strong constitution prior to the onset of peri-menopause.  Now everything has changed.  My blood pressure is up - you need to check that, and my blood tests are not so great, but getting much better with the BTD/GTD.  Get a physical from whoever you trust and run your SWAMI again.  I am updating my blood tests every three months, since my body is in a rapid time of change.  Your body is going into a new phase of life.  You need to meet that new phase head on with positive changes to your diet and exercise plan.  You know what you need to do!!!  Your are an expert.
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 1:50pm; Reply: 18
Went to yoga at 6:15 and I drank the kale smoothie this morning ;).
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 3:25pm; Reply: 19
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 11:41pm; Reply: 20
Bought the red wine 8)..
Posted by: 815 (Guest), Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 11:44pm; Reply: 21
Fish oil will raise your HDL and lower the LDL
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Wednesday, February 23, 2011, 11:49pm; Reply: 22
Yup took the fish oil this morning, too. Thanks MF, where have you been?
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Thursday, February 24, 2011, 2:11pm; Reply: 23
Quoted Text
I'm not a Doctor, but I have the same problem as you.  I'm a 39 yr. old male, and ever since I gave up red meat, my HDL never goes above 36.  My MD's, along with famed researchers, Dr. Ornish and Dr. Cooper of the Cooper Aerobic Clinic seem to think that active people with low total cholestrol that follow a very low fat diet wlll have low HDL simply because not much HDL is needed for these people since they are consuming so little fat.  Hope that helps you out.

Interesting... so I am in this category.

Posted by: AKArtlover, Thursday, February 24, 2011, 3:55pm; Reply: 24
You mean studies need more variables than putting everyone in a box? (sarcasm)
I wonder what Dr. D's thoughts are.

So, Scott said to tell Andrea, "If the BTD isn't working out for her, there is this great Twinky Diet he read about on Yahoo."  ;D ;D ;D

(sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell) ;)
Posted by: Lola, Friday, February 25, 2011, 4:25am; Reply: 25
that advice ain t BT specific or physiologically right :)
Print page generated: Sunday, September 24, 2017, 5:18am