Jump to content
Mike Lustgarten

LDL: What's Optimal For Health And Longevity?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Ron Put said:

...the significant drop in my TC, LDL, and inflammation values is unlikely to be because of an underlying disease or metabolic issue,

But that's not  the question here. 

The question is:   over the next twenty, thirty or forty plus years of your life,  would you better off having moderately low cholesterol levels rather than extremely low levels  so as to better protected against cancer, infectious diseases etc.?  (especially  since you do not have any cardiovascular risk factors, afaik.)  

That's is an open question.  

Cholesterol is a double-edged sword.

 

Edited by Sibiriak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ron Put said:

Yep, but many of you here have been doing this for a long time and are probably better than me at it.  For me, it's a significant improvement and kind of surprising how quickly I adapted

You're doing well.

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnold's cholesterol level dropped to 109 after he went vegan, and he says he never felt better

https://www.livekindly.co/arnold-schwarzenegger-beyond-meat-almond-milk/

and... BEYOND MEAT>. which has saturated fat too..

Also isn't low cholesterol associated with depression?  i mean clearly it isn't for ARNOLD

Edited by InquilineKea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, InquilineKea said:

Arnold's cholesterol level dropped to 109 after he went vegan, and he says he never felt better

Do we know which cholesterol it is? Specifically, TC or LDL-C? If the former, it's very low, if the latter, it's not so low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2021 at 5:27 AM, mccoy said:

Do we know which cholesterol it is? Specifically, TC or LDL-C? If the former, it's very low, if the latter, it's not so low.

I just tried searching and all articles are based on the same "cholesterol at 109" quote, so I would guess it's total cholesterol, since that's the common use.  And that is very low, indeed. Who knows if it's too low, or optimum....

I thought this was an interesting presentation on cholesterol and cancer:
 

 

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had really low cholesterol from doing CR and I never felt any negative effects from it. 

The numbers were:

Total 2.8 (108mg/dl)
HDL: 1 (39mg/dl)
LDL 1.5 (58mg/dl)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matt said:

I've had really low cholesterol from doing CR and I never felt any negative effects from it. 

The numbers were:

Total 2.8 (108mg/dl)
HDL: 1 (39mg/dl)
LDL 1.5 (58mg/dl)

 

I seriously doubt that Schwarzenegger is practicing CR, though. If I had to bet, I'd bet he refers to LDL cholesterol. I'm pretty curious at this point!

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2021 at 2:19 AM, Sibiriak said:

Arnold's never felt better,  after multiple heart surgeries.

Right. It is not clear if they were due to steroid assumption, excessive training, congenital disease, or all of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arnold successfully sued a doctor that stated his heart surgery was due to steroid use.

Arnold said that the doctor could not claim that without ever having examined him; Arnie claimed that the surgery was necessary due to some congenital defect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From MedicalXpress, Not all 'good' cholesterol is healthy

HDL cholesterol (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), or "good cholesterol," is associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular disease as it transports cholesterol deposited in the arteries to the liver to be eliminated. 

Although drugs that lower LDL cholesterol reduce cardiovascular risk, those that raise good cholesterol have not proven effective in reducing the risk of heart disease.

The conclusion is that genetic characteristics linked to the generation of large good cholesterol particles are directly associated with a higher risk of heart attack, while features linked to small good cholesterol particles are related to a lower risk of heart attack.

There is a positive causal relationship between the size of HDL cholesterol particles and the risk of heart attack, so although we have to increase the levels of good cholesterol in the blood, they must always be small particles

If we need to do something in relation to HDL, it is to increase the number of small particles, which are those that adequately perform the function of eliminating cholesterol, those that really move it to the liver for removal, and do not allow it to accumulate in the arteries and cause cardiovascular disease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2021 at 9:15 AM, corybroo said:

There is a positive causal relationship between the size of HDL cholesterol particles and the risk of heart attack, so although we have to increase the levels of good cholesterol in the blood, they must always be small particles

Interesting. This made me take a look at my test.

Quest Diagnostics appears to suggest the opposite to be the optimal result, unless I am misunderstanding their footnote:

 

HDL LARGE: nmol/L

Risk: Optimal >6729; Moderate 6729-5353; High <5353

Edited by Ron Put

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×