Re: Re: Chylomicrons & CVD Risk

[Guest guest]

The lower the Non HDL the better, so you are much better off today.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----

From: citpeks [mailto:citpeks@...]

Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:19 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Chylomicrons & CVD Risk

According to the " non-HDL " measure, I am much worse off today than when

I was eating trans-fats regularly. Today my TC-HDL is 164-55=109.

Several years ago it was 223-56=167.

Can this be correct??? skeptic <=> citpeks

Tony

>>>

From: " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

Date: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:00 am

Subject: [ ] Chylomicrons & CVD Risk In one of the

previous discussion on the " choleterol myth " , I think I mentioned

chlyomicrons. This is an interesting article on them that came out today

and here is a discussion on the article.

The most important issue is that most all lipid profiles do not (and can

not) measure chylomicrons, which may be some of the most atherogenic

particles there are. This is why total " non-HDL " (TC -

HDL) may become the best measure of CVD risk.

This is also why the focus on HDL is misguided and why a TC of 150 and a

HDL of 30 may be better than a TC of 200 and a HDL of 40, even though

both have a TC/HDL ratio of 5:1 and the HDL of 40 appears better than

the HDL of 30. The total non HDL of the first one if 120 and the second

one 150.

>>>

[Guest guest]

My lowest TC 116, HDL was 36. 116 - 36 = 80.

In 3 yrs TC has been as high as 172 and HDL was 37. 172 - 37 = 135.

The highest TC I ever has was 213 (234#) hdl was 33. 213 - 33 = 180

IOW, the HDL didn't change that much, but I'm not a high cholesterol person. The "other" group has average TC that peaks at maybe 250. Isn't it likely this other factor doesnt fit everyone anyway?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 10:21 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Chylomicrons & CVD Risk

The lower the Non HDL the better, so you are much better off today. Jeff -----Original Message-----From: citpeks [mailto:citpeks@...] Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 11:19 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Chylomicrons & CVD RiskAccording to the "non-HDL" measure, I am much worse off today than whenI was eating trans-fats regularly. Today my TC-HDL is 164-55=109.Several years ago it was 223-56=167.Can this be correct??? skeptic <=> citpeksTony>>>From: "Jeff Novick" <jnovick@p...>Date: Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:00 amSubject: [ ] Chylomicrons & CVD Risk In one of theprevious discussion on the "choleterol myth", I think I mentionedchlyomicrons. This is an interesting article on them that came out todayand here is a discussion on the article.The most important issue is that most all lipid profiles do not (and cannot) measure chylomicrons, which may be some of the most atherogenicparticles there are. This is why total "non-HDL" (TC -HDL) may become the best measure of CVD risk.This is also why the focus on HDL is misguided and why a TC of 150 and aHDL of 30 may be better than a TC of 200 and a HDL of 40, even thoughboth have a TC/HDL ratio of 5:1 and the HDL of 40 appears better thanthe HDL of 30. The total non HDL of the first one if 120 and the secondone 150.>>>

[Guest guest]

>> Isn't it likely this other factor doesnt fit everyone anyway?

There are always exceptions. It just is a way of taking into account other atherogenic factors that are accounted for in the typical lipid profile.

Chylomicrons are produced mostly in the period following eating a high fat meal and can last up to around 5 hours.

So, by following CR-ON, and not overeating and a "lower" fat version, you mostly eliminate the issue.

We are writing an article on the topic and I willl post it soon as we are done

Jeff