TriGlycerides on the high


Serum Appearance : Clear Clear

S Cholesterol : 129 - Desired value: < 200 mg/dl

S Triglycerides : 295 - Desired value: < 160 mg/dl

HDL Cholesterol : 47 - Desired value: > 60 mg/dl

LDL Cholesterol : 23 - Desired value : < 130 mg/dl

VLDL Cholesterol : 59 mg/dl 5 - 51

LDLC/HDLC RATIO : 0.49 0.0 - 3.5

TC/HDLC RATIO : 6.28 0.0 - 5.0

S Cholesterol/HDLC Ration: 2.74 0.0 - 4.5

The triglycerides are showing very high. Whats the best advise with diet control ??

19 Replies

  • This could be what used to labeled "Type IV" hyperlipidemia. It is often familial, and associated with gallstones and pancreatitis, but NOT heart disease.

    I have had this problem since my early thirties, and the things that have been most effective are:

    *Niacin 1,000 mg. 2Xday, (you can use slow-release, but you do NOT want the "non-flushing" variety.) *Red Rice Yeast Extract 600-1,200 mg./day (You need to supplement CoQ10 when you use this!!) & *1 TABLESPOON/50 pounds body weight/day of a high quality essential fatty acid oil blend like "Barlean's 3-6-9 Total Omega" or "Udo's Oil." (You can combine fish oils & flax oils to get this. Most Capsules will NOT have sufficient quantities. You wanted cold pressed oils that have been stored re-frigerated and in light-protected containers.)

    If you have diabetes and your sugars are not well controlled, the triglycerides will also elevate alarmingly. I believe the lower HDL is probably associated with this trait. Mine will never go above 45 despite 2-3 hours of exercise every day! I swear by the oil use: it has many other health benefits as well.

  • What are you medical qualifications? What evidence can you provide that your formula is beneficial and not harmful? You should not be giving this advice to people. Frankly, madam, this is pseudo-science. Defend your advice. Go on, accept my challenge.

  • This needs a reply. Much advice given by medically qualified people is often wrong because very little work has been done on nutrition issues. Many people do not know this. Many medical trials which medical people quote can do a lot of damage because the medical person giving advice has not bothered reading the whole trial with the results showing some people gain and some people are damaged.

    The advice of "beverlybdmd" is her experience and may or may not apply to "hannda". "hannda" needs to do the relevant experiments to determine if they work for her or not. And also do the relevant reading.

    "beverlybdmd" may not have quoted things in a scientific manner, but there is an element of truth in what she says.

    There is much research to show that nutritionists before 2005 have given all the wrong advice. There is also evidence that nutritionists still give the wrong advice because they have not considered the effects of the micronome in the human gut which varies from person to person.

    There is a need for each person to develop the expertise to do their own experiments to determine what improves their quality of life and what reduces their quality of life. The medical proffession has still not cottoned on this need yet.

  • I don't have absolute faith in my doctor. He told me that during seven years of medical training he had a one hour lecture on nutrition. So much for expertise. I think that the important point is to treat the consultation as a conversation. If I am concerned about the results of a test I need to know in what way it might have a bad effect on my health or not as the case may be. I am not a biochemist who can bring their own expertise to the issue. I have to trust my doctor to treat me as an intelligent adult. If I reject his medical advice then what do I do? And what value can I place on the results of my own research, which I have no way of evaluating scientifically. It is a problem. Are we seeing the death of trust and with what shall it be replaced? It is quite possible that there is no remedial action to be taken. There is still a very great deal to be learned about human illness and what we mean by good health. All I can think of doing is to articulate ones concerns as clearly and a constructively as possible. It will be hundreds of years before our understanding of the way our bodies work actually matches what we want from medicine. Sorry if that sounds a bit gloomy.

  • It is worse than what you have said.

    Symptoms can have many causes. It is possible for several different health problems to combine together to produce the symptoms of a disease that a person has not got and is unlikely to get.

    This is why there is a need for citizen science and the need for people to engage in citizen science, and the need for people to be taught how to engage in citizen science.

    Most people can do simple experiments. Most people with help can look at the results of simple experiments and form conclusions whether more experiments need to be done to test their conclusions.

    Medicine needs a revolution in the way it handles long term conditions.

    It is still too much geared to instant answers rather working with the patient to develop management strategies to handle long term health disabilities.

    Any suggestions will be most welcome. Criticism is welcome as this shows holes in my understanding.

  • I'm sure you are right, John, we need to have a fresh look at medicine and the relationship between us and the NHS. I support the idea that we should educate ourselves about our health. That is a big ambition especially if we want to put forward an alternative view on health. Surely we would have to access the same conventional education and training that produces our doctors. Would we go native? There is an almost-philosophical element to consider. How do we know what is true or untrue. If we can crack that problem then we will be able to challenge the deceits we are exposed to. Citizen-scientists is a tricky one for me. Science is not a destination but a journey. Good science requires people to challenge and test current theories and to support their work with transparent evidence which can be tested. This is far from the media's take on science which is all about headlines and impact. Too big a subject really for a post. If you would like to read a very angry defence of good science and an exposure of the sciency nonsense to which we are daily exposed try "Bad Science" by Ben Oldacre.

  • I have not read "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre. I have read his other book "Bad Pharma" which has been read by a number of GPs and consultants. I bought several copies at a sale and lent a copy to my GP.

    "Good science requires people to challenge and test current theories and to support their work with transparent evidence which can be tested."

    Agree with you totally. Some science does not have the ability to measure accurately. Here it can be a matter of feeling and hoping the feeling is accurate. This is some of the science I have to engage in because the use measuring equipment is not available to me.

    Some science which should be done is not done because the science experiment does not have the measuring equipment to test the science.

    During some experiments at present on the relationship between arm function and relaxation in the legs. Getting some interesting results which I cannot quantify.

  • I'll check out "Bad Pharma". You'll be aware of the recent shock/horror headlines from our beloved media concerning antibiotics. Apparently they've recently discovered that because of antibiotic resistance we'll all be in trouble if we get a bacterial infection. This is a massive problem but it's not new. In my old job this was being discussed thirty years ago. Fact is that discovering a new antbiotic is very difficult and even more so if the pharmaceutical industry continues to sit on their collective hands. It's basically a market failure, not enough money to be made out of medicines that cure people. I think that resistance problem is mainly the result of antibiotics being used as prophylactics for farm animals and the fact that for years they've been handed out like sweeties in countries like India. The profit motive! I suppose that HM Gov will sleepwalk into the crisis. Well, that was a rant, but none the less true. Of course, we, the patients are blamed. Maybe if we could persuade doctors to enter into an intelligent conversation with us...can but dream

  • Thanks for the reply. Doctors entering into intelligent conversation with us depends on us.

    The antibiotic problem is far more complex. We carry a lot of antibiotic producing bacteria on our bodies. It is called the micronome.


    How accurate this article is, I do not know. However there have been similar type discussions in Nature, Science, Scientific America. There has also been research by biologists highlighting the problem that hospitals in their bacterial cleansing problems are killing off the bacteria that prevent the nasty bacteria from growing. There are quite a few medical people who know this but will carry out the problematic bacterial cleansing problems because it is politically safer to do so.

  • What advice did your doctor give you? Is this a change in your plasma profile? Is it just about the ups and downs our bodies experience? You would be less concerned if you got some medical advice. The problem with Bev's advice is that it seems to be based on self-diagnosis. How does Bev know that her self- medication has any remedial effects whatsoever. This is not a game. Better to take an evidence- based approach rather than guess. Talk to you doctor.

  • Easting sugary and starchy foods typically raise triglycerides. Reduce these as much as possible and retest. Eat plenty of healthy fats like avocado, coconut and olive oil. You can eat the skin on your chicken too.

  • Are you sure of your facts? I thought that carbohydrates were an essential part of our diet. Don't understand your advice on the consumption of fats. I thought that it was saturated fats that we should avoid. Both coconut oil and chicken skin contain saturated fats. I'm confused.

  • The problem seems to be with refined carbs, rather than fat, unless you have a genetic problem like FH.

  • I read the Scientific American article. It is not the original scientific paper. But this is the problem. How does one assess the validity of these studies? It is not unusual nowadays to read of meta-studies which collect together past data on a huge spreadsheet. This is an attempt to re-evaluate the quality and significance of the data and then to question the dietary advice we are given. This can be good science but when we receive this information through the prism of the media we get the shock horror headlines, the simplistic solutions. Nowadays the media, and even the BBC are interested only in the impact of the "stories" and not the evidence base. I suggest that you treat the SA report with a large and life-threatening pinch of salt. What is meant by "refined" carbohydrates? This business of what is meant by healthy eating is a tangle of truths, half-truths and lies. I don't think that anyone truly understands these issues but of course it doesn't stop them from offering their opinions.

  • This report from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition gives a definition of "refined" carbohydrates and describes their effect on health. The Journal is peer reviewed.

  • Sadly that is the state of the health education and information that is given by gvts. Saturated fats are in fact healthy for you, healthier than the chemically produced so called "vegetable" fats (canola, soy etc) - and there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate - check the Masai and Eskimos - Sadly since Ancel Keys, sat fats have been vilified, and the massive grain /crop growers of the US pushed an agenda forward that would promote grains /sugar over any fats. So began a huge commercial/corporate lobby that continues till today. Only now are we seeing the true situation revealed, as obesity and diabetes epidemics sweep the civilised world ie the countries that eat the SAD. You, Free-radical have two choices : Google Google Google and/or just follow the diabetic forums, either type 1 or type 2. These are the people that measure their blood after eating any food and they truly reveal what happens with their blood sugars and insulin after eating carbs and fat.

  • News flash - posted May 8th from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association) : Stop Worrying about Saturated Fat!


  • Possible dietary advice to follow could be a traditional Mediterranean diet. Lots of fresh foods, not pizza and pasta. Keep ready meals, junk food and sugary drinks to a minimum.

  • Hi hannda, you're eating too much carbohydrate.

    A triglyceride consists of three fatty-acids joined by a carbohydrate backbone. If you reduce the number of carbohydrate backbones available, you take three fatty-acids out at-a-time; it's not possible to form the triglyceride without the available carbohydrate.

    That doesn't mean don't eat any carbs; just eat sufficient to replace what you use in a day, which for most people is between 100 and 150g.

    Keep your protein intake to a palm-size or less at each meal, make up the balance of what you eat with natural fat, and watch those figures improve!